DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/06/2026 has been entered.
Response to Remarks
1. Applicant’s remarks (see pgs. 8-11), filed 04/06/2026, regarding the prior art rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant appears to make arguments that “Tamaki does not appear to describe a separate reflection layer disposed between those wave plates, much less a patterned reflective material on a transparent substrate with transmission openings aligned to pixel light-emission regions and larger than those regions, or an air layer specifically between the second wave plate and such a reflection layer.” However, such an argument unaccompanied by evidentiary support is insufficient to rebut Examiner's finding of obviousness. Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness."). Applicant’s arguments also do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, these arguments do not sufficiently show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. Thus, the Examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reasons. Tamaki discloses the reflection layer (¶0100, 0104, 0108-113: the reflective display area includes the reflective electrode formed for each of the pixels 50 on the surface of the planarizing film 15) is disposed between the first wave plate and the second wave plate and includes a patterned reflective material that defines (see FIG. 1 showing reflection layer 15 between the first wave plate 25 and the second wave plate 12; ¶0201: patterning accuracy of the reflective electrode 63; see FIGS. 3A-B showing patterned reflective material): a plurality of reflection regions positioned at non-light-emission regions of the display element (¶0164, 0168-69, 0173; see FIGS. 1 & 9A reproduced above, showing reflection region 63C that reflects light [reflective electrode] positioned at non-light emission BM); and a plurality of light-transmission regions positioned at light-emission regions of the display element such that each light-transmission region overlaps a corresponding light-emission region (see FIG. 8A; ¶0163: “To carry out transmissive display, the reflective electrodes 63A to 63F [reflection region] transmit backlight not only through the spaces 65A and 65B of the reflective electrodes 63 between the pixels 50 but also through the spaces between adjacent divided pixel electrodes among the divided pixel electrodes 501, 502, 505, 506A, 506B, and the like”; see FIGS. 1 & 4 showing plurality of emission regions 63 positioned at plurality of transmission regions 65A and 65B such that each light-transmission region 65 overlaps a corresponding light-emission region 63), wherein the patterned reflective material of the reflection layer is formed on a transparent substrate (¶0094: Circuit elements are formed on the first substrate 14 for the respective pixels 50. Formation of the planarizing film 15 on the surface of the circuit elements…Reflective electrodes are formed on the planarizing film 15 for the respective pixels 50. Because the circuit elements including the TFT are formed on the first substrate 14, the first substrate 14 may be referred to as a TFT substrate; see FIG. 1 showing reflection layer 15 formed on transparent substrate 14) each light-transmission region having a larger plan view area than its corresponding light-emission region while having centers aligned in plan view, and the light-transmission regions are openings in the patterned reflective material (¶0111: the reflective electrode 63 and an opening 64 in one pixel 50 and uses the opening 64 as the transmissive display area. Forming the opening 64 in the pixel 50 for securement of the transmissive display area cannot avoid reduction in the reflective electrode 63, that is, in the reflective display area corresponding to the area of the opening 64). Thus, Applicant’s arguments that Tamaki fails to disclose the reflection layer as a distinct and separate structure possessing the features as claimed are unpersuasive, and Examiner maintains that the newly amended limitations directed to the respective regions and the details of the reflection layer are disclosed by Tamaki, as detailed further below.
Applicant appears to make arguments directed to the Park reference that “even supposing, arguendo, that Park's "barrier" corresponds to a "reflection layer" and its exposed-substrate regions correspond to "openings," Park does not appear to describe the specific air-layer placement as recited. Park's air gap is located between the rear quarter-wave plate and a reflective polarizing plate.” However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that Applicant appears to have misconstrued the mapping of Park’s structures to the claimed limitation. Rather, the reflection layer corresponds to the reflective plate 600 (see FIG. 2B & col. 7 of Park), and the second wave plate corresponds to the rear quarter wave plate 520 (see FIG. 2B & col. 7 of Park). The newly amended claim 1 & 8 limitation (taught by Park) recites “a second wave plate having a surface that faces an air layer between the second wave plate and the reflection layer” (see FIG. 2B showing second wave plate 520 having a surface that faces an air layer AG between the second wave plate 520 and the reflection layer 600). The Examiner further notes that the Park reference was not relied upon for teachings related to ‘the openings’ or to details of the reflection layer as claimed, but rather for combining the teachings of Tamaki with the teachings of Park specifically directed to the claimed air layer condition. In the interest of the clarity of the record, Applicant is reminded that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See MPEP § 2145 Section IV, citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981) and In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Thus, the Examiner maintains that the claimed air layer condition would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as detailed further below.
2. Applicant’s remaining remarks regarding the rejection of the claims (pgs. 7-11 of Remarks filed 04/06/2025) have been fully considered but are also moot upon further consideration because the new grounds of rejection in light of 35 U.S.C. 112 (a)-(b) are necessitated by the Applicant’s amendments (on 04/06/2026), as detailed further below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) filed on 04/06/2026 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and is/are being considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
1. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, each light-transmission region overlaps a corresponding light-emission region, each light-transmission region having a larger plan view area than its corresponding light-emission region while having centers aligned in plan view (italicized for emph.) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s) 1 and 8. No new matter should be entered.
2. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the optical axis as described in paragraphs ¶0027, 0034, 0047, 0049 of the instant specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-6 and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 8 contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The replacement claims submitted 04/06/2026 were not filed with the original disclosure filed on 04/29/2024 and are therefore examined for new matter, see MPEP 608.04(b) and 714.01(e). Claims 1 and 8 limitation “a patterned reflective material that defines: a plurality of reflection regions positioned at non-light-emission regions of the display element; and a plurality of light-transmission regions positioned at light-emission regions of the display element such that each light-transmission region overlaps a corresponding light-emission region, each light-transmission region having a larger plan view area than its corresponding light-emission region while having centers aligned in plan view, wherein the patterned reflective material of the reflection layer is formed on a transparent substrate and the light-transmission regions are openings in the patterned reflective material.” (italicized for emph.) amounts to prohibited new matter. Specifically, the limitation lacks support in the original specification and claims submitted 04/06/2026 because all embodiments of the as-filed specification corresponding to FIGS. 1-8 of the as-filed Drawings fail to disclose and/or depict the overlapping of the transmission region with the emission regions, the reflective material being patterned, along with the larger plan view area and center alignment in plan view as claimed or provide any clarification of how one could characterize such spatial relationships of the respective regions. Applicant refers to FIG. 3 of the originally filed Drawings for support (pgs. 7-8 of Remarks), but FIG. 3 fails to show a plan view of the claimed structural relationships at hand. Instead, FIG. 3 depicts a cross-sectional view, while FIGS. 2A-B are the only figures depicting a plan view and they fail to depict the light transmission and/or reflection regions along with having centers aligned as claimed. FIGS. 2A-B in plan view solely depict the light emission regions R1 and non-light emission regions R2. Furthermore, FIG. 3 fails to provide support for the limitation of “a plurality of reflection regions positioned at non-light-emission regions of the display element; and a plurality of light-transmission regions positioned at light-emission regions of the display element”. Rather, FIG. 3 depict the reflection regions E1 are positioned on a line parallel to the line comprising non light emission regions R2, and a plurality of light-transmission regions E2 are positioned on a line along z1 axis parallel to another line along z1 axis comprising light-emission regions R1 of the display element, wherein each E1 region is adjacent to each E2 region, and each R1 region is adjacent to each R2 region. Applicant refers to ¶0024, 0028, 0035-37, 0047-49 of the instant specification for support directed to the newly-amended limitations of claim 1 (see pgs. 7-8 of Remarks) , but Examiner notes that these cited portions of the specification appear to be completely silent with respect to any relevance to the aforementioned limitations directed to the positional relationships of the claimed regions (See also accompanying Drawings objections corresponding to the newly amended limitations of claims 1 and 8).
Claims 2-6 and 9-13 fail to cure the deficiencies of the rejected base claims. Therefore, Claims 1-6 and 8-13 fail to comply with the written description requirement and are rejected under 35 USC 112(a).
The Examiner respectfully suggests that the claims be amended to recite limitations that are supported by the originally-filed specification.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 8-13 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.
Claims 1 and 8 recites the limitation: “a plurality of light-transmission regions positioned at light-emission regions of the display element such that each light-transmission region overlaps a corresponding light-emission region, each light-transmission region having a larger plan view area than its corresponding light-emission region while having centers aligned in plan view”. There appears to be no reference frame whereby one could envisage the positional relationships between the regions as recited (i.e., plan view areas of each region are not depicted in any of the as-filed Figures, along which direction/axis/reference frame does each light-transmission region overlap a corresponding light-emission region?). It is unclear what is meant by the respective region “being positioned at” the other distinct respective region as claimed. The as-filed Drawings fails to depict the positions of the regions and the overlapping and/or alignment of the structural features as claimed. The as-filed specification appears to be silent with regard to the positional relationships as claimed, thereby failing to elucidate the recited limitations (see corresponding discussion in 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection and Drawings objections supra). See also MPEP § 2173.05(b), Section II, citing Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 2008) (precedential) and Ex parte Brummer, 12 USPQ2d 1653 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989). For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be treated as inherent.
Claims 2-7 and 9-13 inherit the deficiencies of Claims 1 and 8, and are thus rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 6 and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamaki et al. (US 2015/0355493 A1) in view of Park et al. (US 11,187,839 B2).
Regarding Claim 1, as best understood, Tamaki discloses: A display apparatus (FIGS. 1, 4, 8-9, 27; para [0010]: semi-transmissive liquid crystal display device) comprising:
A. a lens (¶0092: a first substrate 14 made of a substrate material including transparent glass [a lens]; see lens 14 of FIG. 1);
B. a display element (¶0091, 0093-95, 0098: A semi-transmissive LCD panel is formed of the first panel unit 10, a second panel unit 20, and a liquid crystal layer 30) including a plurality of pixels (see FIG. 1 showing panel units 10, 20, and 30 including plurality of pixels 50; ¶0087, 0091), each of the plurality of pixels including a light emission region (¶0100, 0111-12, 0117-18: pixels 50 each include a reflective display area (a reflective display portion and a transmissive display area (a transmissive display portion)…the transmissive display area transmits light output from the backlight unit 40 to carry out display with the transmitted light), and a non-light emission region between adjacent light emission regions (see FIG. 9A annotated and reproduced below; ¶0093, 0106, 0164, 0168-69-: sub-pixels 50R, 50G, and 50B [light emission regions] are partitioned by a black matrix BM [non-light emission region]; the Examiner notes that a black matrix is commonly known in the art of display electronics as a non-light emission region);
PNG
media_image1.png
572
602
media_image1.png
Greyscale
C. a first polarization plate; a first wave plate; a second wave plate; a second polarization plate; and a reflection layer disposed between the first wave plate and the lens (¶0092, 0096, 0185; see FIG. 1 showing a semi-transmissive liquid crystal display device 1 comprising: a first polarization plate 26, a first wave plate 25, a reflection layer 15 between the first waveplate 25 and the lens 14, a second wave plate 12, and a second polarization plate 11),
D. the reflection layer (¶0100, 0104, 0108-113: the reflective display area includes the reflective electrode formed for each of the pixels 50 on the surface of the planarizing film 15) is disposed between the first wave plate and the second wave plate and includes a patterned reflective material that defines (see FIG. 1 showing reflection layer 15 between the first wave plate 25 and the second wave plate 12; ¶0201: patterning accuracy of the reflective electrode 63; see FIGS. 3A-B showing patterned reflective material): a plurality of reflection regions positioned at non-light-emission regions of the display element (¶0164, 0168-69, 0173; see FIGS. 1 & 9A reproduced above, showing reflection region 63C that reflects light [reflective electrode] positioned at non-light emission BM); and a plurality of light-transmission regions positioned at light-emission regions of the display element such that each light-transmission region overlaps a corresponding light-emission region (see FIG. 8A annotated and reproduced below; ¶0163: “To carry out transmissive display, the reflective electrodes 63A to 63F [reflection region] transmit backlight not only through the spaces 65A and 65B of the reflective electrodes 63 between the pixels 50 but also through the spaces between adjacent divided pixel electrodes among the divided pixel electrodes 501, 502, 505, 506A, 506B, and the like”; see FIGS. 1 & 4 annotated and reproduced below, showing plurality of emission regions 63 positioned at plurality of transmission regions 65A and 65B such that each light-transmission region 65 overlaps a corresponding light-emission region 63), wherein the patterned reflective material of the reflection layer is formed on a transparent substrate (¶0094: Circuit elements are formed on the first substrate 14 for the respective pixels 50. Formation of the planarizing film 15 on the surface of the circuit elements…Reflective electrodes are formed on the planarizing film 15 for the respective pixels 50. Because the circuit elements including the TFT are formed on the first substrate 14, the first substrate 14 may be referred to as a TFT substrate; see FIG. 1 showing reflection layer 15 formed on transparent substrate 14) each light-transmission region having a larger plan view area than its corresponding light-emission region while having centers aligned in plan view, and the light-transmission regions are openings in the patterned reflective material (¶0111: the reflective electrode 63 and an opening 64 in one pixel 50 and uses the opening 64 as the transmissive display area. Forming the opening 64 in the pixel 50 for securement of the transmissive display area cannot avoid reduction in the reflective electrode 63, that is, in the reflective display area corresponding to the area of the opening 64).
PNG
media_image2.png
420
617
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
542
406
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Tamaki does not appear to explicitly disclose: a second wave plate having a surface that faces an air layer between the second wave plate and the reflection layer.
Park is related to Tamaki with respect to a display apparatus comprising a lens, polarization plates, a reflection layer, light transmission and non-emission regions, and display elements including pixels (cols. 5-7, and FIGS. 1-2 of Park) and Park teaches the claimed condition: a second wave plate having a surface that faces an air layer between the second wave plate and the reflection layer (col. 7: an air-gap (AG) can be disposed between the rear quarter-wave plate 520 and the reflective plate 600; cols. 5-6; see e.g., FIG. 2B showing the second wave plate 520 faces the air gap AG).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tamaki’s second wave plate in view of Park to satisfy the claimed condition, because such an air gap as claimed is known and would be selected to optimize and increase the path of the light travelling toward the eyepiece from the display panel, thereby resulting in an efficient increase of light extraction efficiency and the productivity without the deterioration of the resolution, as taught in cols. 5, 7, and 10 of Park.
Regarding Claim 2, Tamaki discloses the display apparatus according to Claim 1, as above. Tamaki further discloses: wherein a reflective material that is a material reflecting light is formed in the reflection region, and wherein the light transmission region is a region in which the reflective material is not formed (¶0011, 0108, 0110-13, 0116-18: reflective display uses the reflective electrode [reflective material] and transmissive display uses spaces of the reflective electrodes between the pixels; see also FIGS. 4 & 8A annotated and reproduced above, showing the reflective electrode [reflective material] formed in region 63 exclusively, and transmission regions 65A and 65B where there are no reflective electrodes).
Regarding Claim 3, Tamaki discloses the display apparatus according to Claim 2, as above. Tamaki further discloses: wherein the reflective material is formed on a transparent substrate to form the reflection region (¶0092-94]: reflective electrodes are formed on planarizing film 15 which is arranged on a first substrate 14 made of transparent glass; see FIG. 1 annotated and reproduced below, showing the reflective electrodes [reflective material] of planarizing film 15 formed on transparent substrate 14), and wherein the light transmission region is a region in which the reflective material is not formed on the transparent substrate (paras [0112-17]: the device carries out transmissive display using the spaces 65A and 65B of the reflective electrodes 63 between the pixels 50; see FIG. 4 annotated and reproduced above, showing the transmission regions 65A and 65B where there are no reflective electrodes formed on transparent substrate).
PNG
media_image4.png
460
585
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, Tamaki discloses the display apparatus according to Claim 1, as above. Tamaki further discloses: further comprising: a color filter layer including a black matrix in the non-light emission region, wherein the reflection region corresponds to a region of the black matrix (paras [0164], [0167]: the sub-pixels 50R, 50G, and 50B include color filters 22R, 22G, and 22B, respectively, and are partitioned by a black matrix BM; see FIG. 9A annotated and reproduced earlier, showing color filter layers 22 including a black matrix BM in the non-light emission region, with the reflection region 63 corresponding to a region of BM).
Regarding Claim 6, Tamaki discloses the display apparatus according to Claim 4, as above. Tamaki further discloses: wherein the light transmission region permits transmission of visible light of a color corresponding to a color of a pixel provided with the light transmission region (paras [0163-64]: the reflective electrodes 63A to 63F transmit backlight through the spaces between adjacent divided pixel electrodes, wherein the color pixel 5a of reflective electrode 63, “is configured to display a color image, includes sub-pixels (pixels) 50R, 50G, and 50B corresponding to colors of R, G, and B, respectively [transmission region permits light of color corresponding to color of pixel]) and limits transmission of visible light of a color different from the color of the pixel (para [0097]: the color filter 22 limits transmission of colored light by having “a structure in which filters in stripes of red (R), green (G), and blue (B) extending in the column direction (Y-direction) are repeatedly arranged at the same pitch as that of the pixels 50” [limits transmission of a color different from the color of pixel]; see FIG. 9A-B reproduced earlier showing corresponding labeled parts).
Regarding Claim 8, as best understood, Tamaki discloses: An imaging apparatus (FIGS. 1, 4, 8-9, 27; ¶0010, 0087, 0106, 0164: semi-transmissive liquid crystal display device supports color display [imaging apparatus], one pixel serving as a unit that constitutes a color image includes a plurality of sub-pixels; The Examiner notes that the “imaging apparatus” feature in the preamble merely states a purpose or intended use of the invention that does not limit the claim scope, since the body of the claim in the instant case fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention such that deletion of the preamble phrase does not affect the structure of the claimed invention, thus rendering the preamble to be of no significance to the claim construction; see MPEP § 2111.02, Section II, citing Catalina Mktg. Int’l, 289 F.3d at 808-09, 62 USPQ2d at 1785 and Intirtool, Ltd. v. Texar Corp., 369 F.3d 1289, 1294-96, 70 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84 (Fed. Cir. 2004)) comprising:
A. a lens (¶0092: a first substrate 14 made of a substrate material including transparent glass [a lens]; see lens 14 of FIG. 1);
B. an imaging element including a plurality of pixels (¶0091, 0093-95, 0098: A semi-transmissive LCD panel is formed of the first panel unit 10, a second panel unit 20, and a liquid crystal layer 30; the Examiner notes that the present claim language allows Tamaki’s display panel units 10, 20 to be considered an imaging element in accordance with the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term in light of the as-filed specification), each of the plurality of pixels including a light reception region that is a region through which outside light is transmitted (¶0100, 0111-12, 0117-18: pixels 50 each include a transmissive display area (a transmissive display portion) [light reception region]…the transmissive display area transmits light output from the backlight unit 40 [outside light] to carry out display with the transmitted light), the imaging element further including a non-light reception region between adjacent light reception regions (see FIG. 9A annotated and reproduced below; ¶0093, 0106, 0164, 0168-69-: sub-pixels 50R, 50G, and 50B [light emission regions] are partitioned by a black matrix BM [non-light emission region]; the Examiner notes that a black matrix is commonly known in the art of display electronics as a non-light emission region);
PNG
media_image1.png
572
602
media_image1.png
Greyscale
C. a first polarization plate; a first wave plate; a reflection layer disposed between the first wave plate and the lens; a second wave plate; and a second polarization plate (¶0092, 0096, 0185; see FIG. 1 showing a semi-transmissive liquid crystal display device 1 comprising: a panel unit 10 [display element], a first polarization plate 11, a first wave plate 12, a reflection layer 15 between the first waveplate 25 and the lens 14, a second wave plate 25, and a second polarization plate 26),
D. the reflection layer is disposed between the first wave plate and the second wave plate and includes a patterned reflective material that defines: a plurality of reflection regions positioned at non-light-reception regions of the imaging element; and a plurality of light-transmission regions positioned at light-reception regions of the imaging element such that each light-transmission region overlaps a corresponding light-reception region, each light-transmission region having a larger plan view area than its corresponding light-reception region while having centers aligned in plan view, wherein the patterned reflective material of the reflection layer is formed on a transparent substrate and the light-transmission regions are openings in the patterned reflective material (see rejection of claim 1 supra).
Tamaki does not appear to explicitly disclose: the second wave plate having a surface that faces an air layer between the second wave plate and the reflection layer.
Park is related to Tamaki with respect to a display apparatus comprising a lens, polarization plates, a reflection layer, light transmission and non-emission regions, and display elements including pixels (cols. 5-7, and FIGS. 1-2 of Park) and Park teaches the claimed condition: the second wave plate having a surface that faces an air layer between the second wave plate and the reflection layer (col. 7: an air-gap (AG) can be disposed between the rear quarter-wave plate 520 and the reflective plate 600; cols. 5-6; see e.g., FIG. 2B showing the second wave plate 520 faces the air gap AG).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tamaki’s second wave plate in view of Park to satisfy the claimed condition, because such an air gap as claimed is known and would be selected to optimize and increase the path of the light travelling toward the eyepiece from the display panel, thereby resulting in an efficient increase of light extraction efficiency and the productivity without the deterioration of the resolution, as taught in cols. 5, 7, and 10 of Park.
Regarding Claim 9, Tamaki discloses the imaging apparatus according to claim 8, as above. Tamaki further discloses: wherein a reflective material that is a material reflecting light is formed in the reflection region, and wherein the light transmission region is a region in which the reflective material is not formed (¶0011, 0108, 0110-13, 0116-18: reflective display uses the reflective electrode [reflective material] and transmissive display uses spaces of the reflective electrodes between the pixels; see also FIGS. 4 & 8A annotated and reproduced above, showing the reflective electrode [reflective material] formed in region 63 exclusively, and transmission regions 65A and 65B where there are no reflective electrodes).
Regarding Claim 10, Tamaki discloses the display apparatus according to Claim 1, as above. Tamaki further discloses: wherein the display element is arranged between a backlight element and the first polarization plate (¶0091-92, 0099-100; see FIG. 1 showing display element 10 between first polarization plate 26 and backlight 40).
Regarding Claim 11, Tamaki discloses the display apparatus according to Claim 1, as above. Tamaki further discloses: wherein the reflection layer reflects light generated by the display element (¶0100: reflective display area reflects, with the reflective electrode, outer light entering from the outside through the second panel unit 20 to carry out display with the reflected light).
Regarding Claim 12, Tamaki discloses the imaging apparatus according to Claim 8, as above. Tamaki further discloses: wherein the imaging element converts light entering through the lens into an electrical signal to generate image data (¶0105, 0217: the signal lines 61 (61.sub.1, 61.sub.2, 61.sub.3, . . . ) are wiring that transmits a signal for driving the pixels 50 [part of imaging element], that is, a video signal output from the signal output circuit 70 to the pixels 50…The semi-transmissive liquid crystal display device displays a video signal generated in the electronic apparatuses as an image or video; ¶0093-95: signal lines transmits signal via substrate 14 for driving pixels).
Regarding Claim 13, Tamaki discloses the imaging apparatus according to Claim 8, as above. Tamaki further discloses: wherein the reflection layer reflects light received by the imaging element (see FIG. 1 showing reflection layer 50 reflects light received by the imaging element 20; ¶0100, 0104, 0108-113: the reflective display area includes the reflective electrode formed for each of the pixels 50 on the surface of the planarizing film 15; see FIGS. 4 & 8A; ¶0100, ¶0163: reflective display area reflects, with the reflective electrode, outer light entering from the outside through the second panel unit 20 [imaging element] to carry out display with the reflected light).
Regarding Claim 14, Tamaki discloses the imaging apparatus according to Claim 8, as above. Tamaki further discloses: wherein the reflection layer includes, in the light-transmission regions, filters that pass light corresponding to colors of the pixels and reflect light of other colors (see FIGS. 9A-B:22; ¶0164: The sub-pixels 50R, 50G, and 50B each include a reflective electrode 63C [in reflection layer] having three divided pixel electrodes 505, 506A, and 506B…The sub-pixel 50R corresponding to R includes a color filter 22R, the sub-pixel 50G corresponding to G includes a color filter 22G, and the sub-pixel 50B corresponding to B includes a color filter 22B).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamaki et al. (US 2015/0355493 A1) in view of Park et al. (US 11,187,839 B2), and further in view of Kadowaki (US 2012/0019740 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Tamaki discloses the display apparatus according to Claim 4, as above. Tamaki further discloses: wherein the color filter layer functions as the reflection layer (paras [0164], [0167]: the sub-pixels 50R, 50G, and 50B include color filters 22R, 22G, and 22B, respectively, and each sub-pixel 50R, 50G, and 50B includes a reflective electrode 63C having three divided pixel electrodes 505, 506A, and 506B; see FIG. 9A annotated and reproduced earlier, showing color filter layer 22RGB functioning as the reflection layer 63).
Tamaki does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein the black matrix is formed by a reflective material that is a material reflecting light.
However, it has been held that where the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is disclosed in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.07, citing In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), wherein the court upheld that “selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious”. See also Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), as cited in MPEP § 2144.07.
In the present case, Tamaki discloses a black matrix with light reflective characteristics for the intended purpose of light blocking in a display apparatus (paragraph [0168] of Tamaki: no light passes through the spaces between adjacent sub-pixels among the sub-pixels 50R, 50G, and 50B of reflective electrode due to the black matrix BM; paragraph [0110] of Tamaki: “the reflective electrode 63 is made of a metal, such as aluminum, in a size nearly the same as that of the pixel 50”, i.e., the black matrix is formed upon the reflective electrode; paragraph [0193] of Tamaki: BM is a light-blocking zone).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select Tamaki’s black matrix to satisfy the claimed condition, since a prima facie case of obviousness exists where it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice.
The Examiner further submits Kadowaki. Kadowaki is related to Tamaki with respect to a display apparatus comprising a lens, polarization plates, a reflection layer, light transmission and non-emission regions, and display elements including pixels (paragraphs [0009-10] [0014], [0044], [0093], and FIGS. 1-2, 5, 12 of Kadowaki) and Kadowaki teaches the claimed condition: wherein the black matrix is formed by a reflective material that is a material reflecting light (paragraphs [0069-71], [0098], and FIG. 2 of Kadowaki: black matrix 21 is a "light blocking member" is formed with side surfaces of a metal reflection film 28 such as aluminum, “which has a function to reflect light”).
Therefore, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tamaki’s black matrix in view of Kadowaki to satisfy the claimed condition, because such reflective materials utilized for a black matrix are known and would be selected to “reflect forward the light towards the black matrix” “to more improve the light use efficiency”, as taught in paragraph [0108] of Kadowaki.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMANVITHA SRIDHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-0082. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 930-1800 (EST).
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, BUMSUK WON can be reached at 571-272-2713. 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.
/SAMANVITHA SRIDHAR/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights