DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed August 11, 2025, have been considered, but are moot in view of the amendments to the claims and the corresponding new grounds of rejection set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5–8, and 10–16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 110824740 (original and machine translation attached, hereinafter “Zhong”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0168527 to Liu et al. and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0174529 to Fukushima.
Regarding Claim 1, Zhong discloses (e.g., Figs. 2(a) and 2(b) and their corresponding descriptions starting in paragraph [0066] of the translation) a liquid crystal panel comprising: a first transparent substrate 20 (not explicitly labeled as transparent, but reasonably understood to be transparent, as the polarizer 25 includes a transmission axis, suggesting light passing through the polarizer 25, further implying light passing through substrate 20); a first electrode 23; a liquid crystal layer 51; second electrodes 34; an interlayer insulating film 33; a third electrode 32; and a second transparent substrate 30 in this order (Figs. 2(a) and 2(b)), wherein the liquid crystal layer includes overlapping regions overlapping the second electrode electrodes and non-overlapping regions not overlapping the second electrode electrodes (e.g., Figs. 2(a) and 2(b), respective overlapping and non-overlapping regions with respect to second electrode 34), the first electrode and the third electrode control whether a voltage is applied to the non-overlapping regions (e.g., paragraphs [0058]–0063]), and the first electrode and the second electrodes control whether another voltage is applied to the overlapping regions (e.g., paragraphs [0058]–0063]).
Zhong does not explicitly disclose wherein the liquid crystal layer contains at least one of a polymer dispersed liquid crystal or guest-host liquid crystal containing a dichroic dye, the liquid crystal layer includes a transparent region and a switching region that switches between a transmitting state and a scattering or absorption state, and the overlapping regions function as one of the transparent region and the switching region, and the non-overlapping regions function as the other one of the transparent region and the switching region, the transparent region and the switching region are configured to be applied with different voltages.
Liu discloses a privacy display, similar to Zhong, and Liu teaches (e.g., referring to Figs. 6–10 and their description) the liquid crystal layer includes a transparent region 22 and a switching region 21 that switches between a transmitting state and a scattering or absorption state (paragraph [0056]), and the overlapping regions function as one of the transparent region and the switching region, and the non-overlapping regions function as the other one of the transparent region and the switching region (Figs. 6–10), the transparent region and the switching region are configured to be applied with different voltages (Fig. 6, different voltages/electric fields developed in the different regions) in order to achieve a privacy display where a user can adjust the viewing angles of the privacy function in different regions of the display for an improved viewing experience (e.g., paragraph [0063]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device of Zhong such that the liquid crystal layer includes a transparent region and a switching region that switches between a transmitting state and a scattering or absorption state, and the overlapping regions function as one of the transparent region and the switching region, and the non-overlapping regions function as the other one of the transparent region and the switching region, the transparent region and the switching region are configured to be applied with different voltages, as suggested by Liu, in order to achieve a privacy display where a user can adjust the viewing angles of the privacy function in different regions of the display for an improved viewing experience.
The combination of Zhong and Liu does not explicitly disclose wherein the liquid crystal layer contains at least one of a polymer dispersed liquid crystal or guest-host liquid crystal containing a dichroic dye.
Fukushima discloses a privacy display, similar to Zhong and Liu, and Fukushima teaches that a suitable configuration for the liquid crystal layer is a guest-host liquid crystal containing a dichroic dye, and to achieve a simple structure (e.g., paragraphs [0040], [0099]–[0100], and Table 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device of Zhong and Liu such that the liquid crystal layer contains at least one of a polymer dispersed liquid crystal or guest-host liquid crystal containing a dichroic dye, as suggested by Fukushima, as a suitable configuration (e.g., MPEP §§ 2144.06–07) and also to achieve a simple structure.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Zhong, Liu, and Fukushima would have rendered obvious wherein the second electrodes are disposed in a stripe shape or a lattice pattern in a plan view (Figs. 2(a) and 2(b) of Zhong; paragraph [0039] of Liu).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Zhong, Liu, and Fukushima would have rendered obvious wherein a thickness of the non-overlapping region is 30 μm or less (where Fukushima discloses an example of 40µm, paragraph [0138], which is close to the claimed 30µm, Fukushima teaches that the viewing angle is a result of thickness and width, paragraph [0137], and Fukushima teaches that the widths can be adjusted to control the viewing angle, paragraph [0093], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing that the thickness can also be adjusted as needed per a specific design to achieve a desired viewing angle).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Zhong, Liu, and Fukushima would have rendered obvious wherein the second electrodes are a transparent electrode or an electrode including a light absorbing material (paragraph [0075] of Fukushima).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Zhong, Liu, and Fukushima would have rendered obvious an image display device (10 of Fukushima, Fig. 1) comprising the liquid crystal panel according to claim 1; and a display panel (13 of Fukushima, Fig. 1) configured to display an image (Fig. 1 of Fukushima).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Zhong, Liu, and Fukushima would have rendered obvious wherein the liquid crystal panel is arranged between the display panel and a backlight (e.g., 60 of Zhong; 11 of Fukushima, Fig. 1; also where the rearrangement of the basic components of the display would have been obvious, yielding predictable results, e.g., MPEP § 2144.04), and the display panel is a liquid crystal display panel (e.g., paragraphs [0081]–[0085] of Fukushima).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Zhong, Liu, and Fukushima would have rendered obvious wherein the liquid crystal panel is arranged in front of the display panel (e.g., Figs. 2(a) and 2(b) of Zhong; 11 of Fukushima, Fig. 1; also where the rearrangement of the basic components of the display would have been obvious, yielding predictable results, e.g., MPEP § 2144.04), and the display panel is a self-luminous display panel (e.g., paragraphs [0081]–[0085] of Fukushima).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Zhong, Liu, and Fukushima would have rendered obvious wherein the overlapping regions correspond to the switching region, and the non-overlapping regions correspond to the transparent region (e.g., Figs. 6–10 of Liu).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Zhong, Liu, and Fukushima would have rendered obvious wherein the non-overlapping regions correspond to the switching region, and the overlapping regions correspond to the transparent region (e.g., Figs. 6–10 of Liu, where reversing or rearranging the regions would have been obvious, yielding predictable results, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobviousness, MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Zhong, Liu, and Fukushima would have rendered obvious wherein the first electrode is disposed in a planar shape on an entirety of a surface of the first transparent substrate, and wherein the third electrode is disposed in a planar shape on an entirety of a surface of the second transparent substrate (e.g., Figs. 2(a) and 2(b) of Zhong).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Zhong, Liu, and Fukushima would have rendered obvious wherein the thickness of the non-overlapping regions is 10 µm or less (where Fukushima discloses an example of 40µm, paragraph [0138], and teaches that the viewing angle is a result of thickness and width, paragraph [0137], and Fukushima teaches that the widths can be adjusted to control the viewing angle, paragraph [0093], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing that the thickness can also be adjusted as needed per a specific design to achieve a desired viewing angle).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Zhong, Liu, and Fukushima would have rendered obvious wherein a pitch of the non-overlapping regions is smaller than a pixel pitch of the display panel (e.g., Figs. 2(a) and 2(b) of Zhong).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Zhong, Liu, and Fukushima would have rendered obvious wherein the pixel pitch of the display panel is an integer multiple of the pitch of the non-overlapping regions (e.g., Figs. 2(a) and 2(b) of Zhong).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Zhong, Liu, and Fukushima, in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0199043 to Wu.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Zhong, Liu, and Fukushima does not explicitly disclose wherein the backlight has a local dimming function.
Wu discloses a backlight for a display, and teaches that providing local dimming reduces power consumption and improves frame quality of the display (e.g., paragraph [0002]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device of Zhong, Liu, and Fukushima such that the backlight has a local dimming function, as suggested by Wu, in order to reduce power consumption and improve frame quality of the display.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 RYAN CROCKETT whose telephone number is (571)270-3183. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am to 5pm.
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, Michael Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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.
/RYAN CROCKETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871