DETAILED ACTION
Response to Remarks
Applicant’s remarks regarding the prior art rejection of the claims (pgs. 6-10 of Remarks & claims filed 11/25/2025) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant appears to make arguments that the newly amended claims 1 & 8 limitation is not taught/disclosed by Tamaki (pg. 7 of Remarks & claims filed 11/25/2025). However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the newly-amended limitation directed to the spatial alignment of the respective reflection regions and transmission regions appear fail to comply with the written description requirement by virtue of being prohibited new matter (as discussed in detail further below). Nonetheless, the Examiner maintains that Tamaki teaches the newly-amended limitation, as Tamaki’s reflection layer comprises a plurality of reflection regions spatially aligned with the non-light emission regions of the display element, each reflection region configured to reflect light (see ¶0164, 0168-69, 0173 of Tamaki; see FIGS. 1 & 9A showing reflection region 63C that reflects light [reflective electrode] spatially aligned with and corresponding to each non-light emission BM); and a plurality of light transmission regions spatially aligned with the light emission regions of the display element, each light transmission region configured to transmit light such that each light transmission region corresponds to a respective light emission region (¶0163 of Tamaki: “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” [transmission regions corresponding to emission regions comprising pixel electrodes]; see FIGS. 1 & 4 showing plurality of emission regions 63 spatially aligned with and corresponding to plurality of transmission regions 65A and 65B). Thus, Tamaki discloses the newly-amended limitations directed to said plurality of regions in light of the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term ‘spatially aligned’ in light of the as-filed disclosure. Similarly, Ino discloses the newly-amended limitations directed to said plurality of regions comprised within the reflection layer as recited in claim 8, detailed further below.
Applicant appears to make arguments that “the combination of Tamaki and Park is improper because the Office Action relies on information gleaned solely from Applicant's specification” and that “the combination of the Tamaki and Park are based on impermissible hindsight” (pgs. 7-8 of Remarks). Applicant further asserts that “there does not appear to be any reason for one of ordinary skill in the art to introduce the Park air gap either between the half-waveplate and the polarizing plate, or the between the half-wave-plate and the quarter-wave plate” (pg. 8). However, the Examiner notes that there is no requirement that an "express, written motivation to combine must appear in prior art references before a finding of obviousness." See MPEP § 2145 Section X, Part A, citing Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 357 F.3d 1270, 1276, 69 USPQ2d 1686, 1690 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395, 170 USPQ 209, 212 (CCPA 1971), wherein the court upheld that "[a]ny judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based on hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper." See also Uber Techs., Inc. v. X One, Inc., 957 F.3d 1334, 1339-40, 2020 USPQ2d 10476 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Applicant is also respectfully reminded that it is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review, and that combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures. See MPEP § 2145 Section III, stating "The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). See also In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ 385, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983) and In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973).
Applicant further asserts that Park does not appear to include any other description or indication of motivation to add an air gap beyond the single sentence in col. 7 of Park (pg. 8 of Remarks). However, Applicant appears to have selected a narrow portion of Park’s disclosure to argue a lack of obviousness. Applicant is respectfully reminded that "The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain." In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). See MPEP § 2123 Section I. As stated previously (pgs. 5-6 of Non-Final Office Action on 09/02/2025), the primary reference of Tamaki discloses a display apparatus comprising details directed to a lens, a display element, polarizing plates, wave plates and a reflection layer as claimed (¶0091-92, 0093-96, 0098, 0100 0185; FIGS. 1, 4, 9A). The secondary reference of 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), wherein Park clearly teaches that an air gap adjacent to the wave plate is well 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 in cols. 5, 7 & 10 of Park (see col. 5 of Park stating: “Optical elements can be disposed between the display panel 100 and the eyepiece 200 to increase a path of light travelling toward the eyepiece 200 from the display panel 100; see also col. 7 of Park stating: “an air-gap (AG) can be disposed between the rear quarter-wave plate 520 and the reflective plate 600”; see also col. 10 of Park stating: “in the display device according to the embodiments of the present invention, the light extraction efficiency can be increased without the deterioration of the resolution of the display device. Thereby, in the display device according to the embodiments of the present invention, the quality and the color reproduction rate of the image of the display device recognized by the user can be improved.”). Thus, Applicant’s assertion regarding the narrow selection of Park’s disclosure and that teachings directed to the air gap as claimed relies on information gleaned solely from Applicant's specification are both incorrect and as discussed supra, the disclosure of the secondary reference of Park clearly teaches not only the presence of an air gap between optical elements as recited in the claim, but also teaches the beneficial results of such an increased light path within the display system. In conclusion, the Examiner has clearly articulated multiple reasons why the claimed invention would have been obvious, the rationales being: (1) combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, (2) known work in one field of endeavor prompting variations of it for use in the same field since the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, and (3) some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. Thus, the Applicant has not disputed the Examiner’s evidentiary findings regarding the Tamaki and Park references which support a conclusion of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 by utilization of valid rationales, as detailed previously and below.
As explained above, none of Applicant’s arguments against the prior art are persuasive, and thus the newly amended Claims 1-6 and 8-13 remain rejected based upon previously-cited references, as detailed below.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
1. A typo (underlined) in claims 1 and 8 renders the meaning of the claim unclear, since a first face and/or second face are not recited anywhere in the claim(s): “…the second wave plate includes a third face that directly faces…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 11/25/2025 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 plurality of reflection regions spatially aligned with the non-light emission regions of the display element…a plurality of light transmission regions spatially aligned with the light emission regions of the display element” (italicized for emph.) amounts to prohibited new matter. Specifically, the limitation lacks support in the original specification and claims submitted 04/29/2024 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 spatial alignments of the regions as claimed or provide any clarification of how one could characterize such a spatial alignment of the respective regions.
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 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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation: “the reflection layer comprising: a plurality of reflection regions spatially aligned with the non-light emission regions of the display element, each reflection region configured to reflect light; and a plurality of light transmission regions spatially aligned with the light emission regions of the display element, each light transmission region configured to transmit light such that each light transmission region corresponds to a respective light emission region”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the non-light emission regions” and “the light emission regions” since these are newly recited structures. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be treated as: the reflection layer comprising: “a plurality of reflection regions spatially aligned with non-light emission regions of the display element, each reflection region configured to reflect light; and a plurality of light transmission regions spatially aligned with light emission regions of the display element, each light transmission region configured to transmit light such that each light transmission region corresponds to a respective light emission region”.
Claims 9-13 inherit the deficiencies of Claim 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 8-13 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, 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 annotated and reproduced below on left, 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 that is a region through which light is transmitted or a region that emits light (¶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), the display element further including 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) comprising: a plurality of reflection regions spatially aligned with the non-light emission regions of the display element, each reflection region configured to reflect light (¶0164, 0168-69, 0173; see FIGS. 1 & 9A reproduced above, showing reflection region 63C that reflects light [reflective electrode] spatially aligned with and corresponding to each non-light emission BM); and a plurality of light transmission regions spatially aligned with the light emission regions of the display element, each light transmission region configured to transmit light such that each light transmission region corresponds to a respective 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” [transmission regions corresponding to emission regions comprising pixel electrodes]; see FIGS. 1 & 4 annotated and reproduced below, showing plurality of emission regions 63 spatially aligned with and corresponding to plurality of transmission regions 65A and 65B).
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: wherein the second wave plate includes a third face that directly faces the air gap.
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: wherein the second wave plate includes a third face that directly faces the air gap (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 includes a third face that directly 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 (¶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) comprising: a plurality of reflection regions spatially aligned with the non-light emission regions of the display element, each reflection region configured to reflect light (¶0164, 0168-69, 0173; see FIGS . 1 & 9A showing reflection region 63C that reflects light [reflective electrode] spatially aligned with and corresponding to each non-light emission BM); and a plurality of light transmission regions spatially aligned with the light emission regions of the display element, each light transmission region configured to transmit light such that each light transmission region corresponds to a respective 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” [transmission regions corresponding to emission regions comprising pixel electrodes]; see FIGS. 1 & 4 showing plurality of emission regions 63 spatially aligned with and corresponding to plurality of transmission regions 65A and 65B).
Tamaki does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein the second wave plate includes a third face that directly faces the air gap.
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: wherein the second wave plate includes a third face that directly faces the air gap (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 includes a third face that directly 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).
Claims 8-9 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ino et al. (US 2004/0169793 A1) in view of in view of Park et al. (US 11,187,839 B2).
Regarding Claim 8, as best understood, Ino discloses: An imaging apparatus (FIG. 16A reproduced below, showing optical sensor 55 and photodetector 54 with display panel 1) comprising:
PNG
media_image5.png
475
885
media_image5.png
Greyscale
A. a lens (¶0100: a transparent insulating substrate 28 formed by using a transparent material such as glass is arranged);
B. an imaging element (¶0078: the display panel 1 is constituted by a transparent insulating substrate 8 and a thin film transistor (TFT) 9 formed on that, a transparent insulating substrate 28, color filters 29a, and an counter electrode 30 and a liquid crystal layer 3) including a plurality of pixels (para [0082]: the pixel region 4 of display panel 1 [imaging element] is provided with a reflection region A and a transmission region B), each of the plurality of pixels including a light reception region (paras [0104-107], [0146]: openings 33 formed in color filters 29a corresponding to pixel region 4 are preferably formed at center of reflection region A and can be adjusted to tune reflectance and transmittance which is measured by photodiode/sensor 55, i.e., pixel regions are light reception regions of imaging element) that is a region through which outside light is transmitted (para [0026]: “wherein each pixel region has a transmission region for display by passing light from an internal light source arranged in parallel”), the imaging element further including a non-light reception region between adjacent light reception regions (¶0026, 0158-60, 0169, 0174: the pixel regions 4b and 4c are provided between them with a spacer 85 on the signal line 6c in the reflection region… the nondisplay regions are due to the region occupied by the spacer; Examiner notes that since there is no special definition provided for “imaging element”, the term must be given its broadest reasonable interpretation and the present claim language allows the pixel region 4 of display panel 1 to be included in the imaging element as a region/layer transmitting and reflecting light into the optical sensor 55/photodetector 54 of FIG. 16A);
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 (see FIG. 2 annotated and reproduced below, showing a first polarization plate 27; a first wave plate 26; a reflection layer 12 disposed between the first wave plate 26 and the lens 28; a second wave plate 31; and a second polarization plate 32),
PNG
media_image6.png
799
1228
media_image6.png
Greyscale
D. the reflection layer comprising: a plurality of reflection regions spatially aligned with the non-light emission regions of the display element, each reflection region configured to reflect light; and a plurality of light transmission regions spatially aligned with the light emission regions of the display element, each light transmission region configured to transmit light such that each light transmission region corresponds to a respective light emission region (para [0083]: a reflection electrode 12 constituting the pixel region 4 [reflection layer] having the reflection region A [reflection regions] and the transmission region B [transmission regions]; see FIG. 2 reproduced above, showing regions A and B spatially aligned with and corresponding to non-light emission 6c and light emission regions 33, respectively).
Ino does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein the second wave plate includes a third face that directly faces the air gap.
Park is related to Ino 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: wherein the second wave plate includes a third face that directly faces the air gap (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 wherein the second wave plate 520 includes a third face that directly 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 Ino’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, Ino discloses the imaging apparatus according to claim 8, as above. Ino further discloses: wherein a reflective material that is a material reflecting light is formed in the reflection region (para [0095]: “The reflection electrode 12 is made of a metal film of rhodium, titanium, chromium, silver, aluminum and Chromel”, and is configured to reflect the light), and wherein the light transmission region is a region in which the reflective material is not formed (para [0092]: openings 33 formed on color filters can act as transmission region B [where reflective material is not formed]; see FIG. 5 reproduced below, showing transmission region B where reflective material is not present; para [0103-107] & FIGS. 8A-B reproduced below: the color filters 29a for reflection region A are formed with a thickness and by a material different from those of the portion 29a-2 corresponding to the transmission region B, i.e., reflective material of reflection region is different from transmissive material of transmission region).
PNG
media_image7.png
491
502
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
564
776
media_image8.png
Greyscale
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 (¶0026-28, 0079, 0084: transmitting image data from the substrate 8 to the pixel region perform the display).
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 (¶0026, 0030, 0082-83, 0090, 0103: a reflection electrode 12 constituting the pixel region 4 has a reflection region for display by reflecting light…at the time of reflection type display, by using the light passed through this opening 33 as the display light together with the light passed through the color filters 29a, the reflectance in the entire reflection type display can be improved; see e.g., FIG. 1 showing reflection layer 12 reflects light received by the imaging element 3).
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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 0730-1700 (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 on 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
/BALRAM T PARBADIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872