Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-6 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/18/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 18 April 2024. These drawings are accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 3, in line 3, the limitation “the image data” lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claim. For purposes of examination, this is interpreted as “the first image data”.
Regarding claim 4, in lines 3-4, the limitation “the image data” lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claim. For purposes of examination, this is interpreted as “the first image data”.
Regarding claim 5, in lines 2-3, the limitation “the image data” lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claim. For purposes of examination, this is interpreted as “the first image data”.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3 and 5-6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 8-10 of copending Application No. 18/658,339 (reference is to the claims filed 10/24/2025 in the application file, the application was also published as US patent application publication 2024/0428743 to Miura et al.). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
Regarding claim 1, Miura claims a display device comprising: a display; a polarization module placed overlapping the display, the polarization module being configured to actively switch a polarization state between a first polarization state and a second polarization state; and a controller, wherein the controller is configured to generate second image data from first image data, cause the display to display a first image based on the first image data and a second image based on the second image data in a time division manner, and switch the polarization state of the polarization module to the first polarization state in a case in which the first image is displayed and to the second polarization state in a case in which the second image is displayed in synchronization with a timing of the time division (see claim 1, lines 1-14).
Regarding claim 2, Miura claims all of the limitations of claim 1.
Miura also claims that in the first polarization state, the first image is visually recognized by a viewer through polarized glasses worn by the viewer, and in the second polarization state, the second image is not visually recognized by the viewer through the polarized glasses (see all of claim 8).
Regarding claim 3, Miura claims all of the limitations of claim 1.
Miura also claims that generating second image data includes converting a gray scale of the image data into a gray scale with a predefined relationship (see all of claim 9).
Regarding claim 5, Miura claims all of the limitations of claim 1.
Miura also claims that generating second image data includes dividing the image data into multiple areas, and changing a gray scale of a pixel belonging to each of the multiple areas to a gray scale with a relationship predefined for each of the multiple areas (see claim 10, lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 6, Miura claims all of the limitations of claim 1.
Miura also claims that switching the polarization state of the polarization module includes dividing the polarization module into multiple segments along a scanning direction of the display, and switching the polarization states of the multiple segments in turn along the scanning direction with a time difference (see claim 1, lines 19-23)
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-2 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11, and 12 of copending Application No. 19/199,964 (published as US patent application publication 2025/0347936 to Miura et al.). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 1, Miura claims a display device comprising: a display; a polarization module placed overlapping the display, the polarization module being configured to actively switch a polarization state between a first polarization state and a second polarization state; and a controller, wherein the controller is configured to generate second image data from first image data, cause the display to display a first image based on the first image data and a second image based on the second image data in a time division manner, and switch the polarization state of the polarization module to the first polarization state in a case in which the first image is displayed and to the second polarization state in a case in which the second image is displayed in synchronization with a timing of the time division (see all of claim 1).
Regarding claim 2, Miura claims all of the limitations of claim 1.
Miura also claims that in the first polarization state, the first image is visually recognized by a viewer through polarized glasses worn by the viewer, and in the second polarization state, the second image is not visually recognized by the viewer through the polarized glasses (see claim 12, which depends from claim 11).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-2 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 7-8 of copending Application No. 19/201,058 (published as US patent application publication 2025/0347953 to Kobayashi et al.). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 1, Kobayashi claims a display device comprising: a display; a polarization module placed overlapping the display, the polarization module being configured to actively switch a polarization state between a first polarization state and a second polarization state; and a controller, wherein the controller is configured to generate second image data from first image data, cause the display to display a first image based on the first image data and a second image based on the second image data in a time division manner, and switch the polarization state of the polarization module to the first polarization state in a case in which the first image is displayed and to the second polarization state in a case in which the second image is displayed in synchronization with a timing of the time division (see all of claim 1).
Regarding claim 2, Kobayashi claims all of the limitations of claim 1.
Kobayashi also claims that in the first polarization state, the first image is visually recognized by a viewer through polarized glasses worn by the viewer, and in the second polarization state, the second image is not visually recognized by the viewer through the polarized glasses (see claim 8, which depends from claim 7).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kasahara et al. (US 2020/0007857) (hereafter Kasahara).
Regarding claim 1, Kasahara discloses a display device (see at least the abstract) comprising: a display (see at least Figs. 1 and 2 and paragraph [0042], where display module 8 includes a display panel 20); a polarization module placed overlapping the display, the polarization module being configured to actively switch a polarization state between a first polarization state and a second polarization state (see at least Figs. 1 and 2 and paragraph [0048], polarization modulator 10); and a controller (see at least Fig. 2 and paragraph [0057], where control circuit board 30 is a controller), wherein the controller is configured to generate second image data from first image data (see at least paragraph [0051], where the first and second images display the same content, but differ in luminance, thus it is understood that the second image data is generated from the first by changing its luminance), cause the display to display a first image based on the first image data and a second image based on the second image data in a time division manner, and switch the polarization state of the polarization module to the first polarization state in a case in which the first image is displayed and to the second polarization state in a case in which the second image is displayed in synchronization with a timing of the time division (see at least Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 3¸ Kasahara discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Kasahara also discloses that generating second image data includes converting a gray scale of the image data into a gray scale with a predefined relationship (see at least paragraph [0059], where the display controller uses a grayscale voltage, which will vary based on the desired luminance of the first and second images).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 would be objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable, once the above stated rejection under 35 USC 112(b) is corrected, if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims for at least the reason that the prior art fails to teach or suggest a display device wherein generating second image data includes converting a gray scale of a pixel belonging to at least one area of the image data into a different gray scale with a relationship predefined according to the gray scale, and setting a gray scale of a pixel belonging to an area other than the at least one area to a specific gray scale predefined regardless of the gray scale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2010/0238097 to Baik et al. discloses a display device comprising: a display; a polarization module placed overlapping the display, the polarization module being configured to actively switch a polarization state between a first polarization state and a second polarization state; and a controller, wherein the controller is configured to cause the display to display a first image based on the first image data and a second image based on the second image data in a time division manner, and switch the polarization state of the polarization module to the first polarization state in a case in which the first image is displayed and to the second polarization state in a case in which the second image is displayed in synchronization with a timing of the time division (see at least Fig. 4 and paragraphs [0048]-[0049]).
However, Baik does not specifically disclose that the controller is configured to generate second image data from first image data.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM W BOOHER whose telephone number is (571)270-0573. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 8:00am - 4:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Stephone Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ADAM W BOOHER/ Examiner, Art Unit 2872