DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention II in the reply filed on January 2, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there would not be a serious search and/or examination burden. This is not found persuasive because
the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries); and
the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention.
For example, Applicant argues claims 9 and 17 relate to the same concept. However, search queries relating to the range of different display modes (claim 9) will be different than a brightness equation for a display region (claim 17). Further still, art related to one invention would not likely be applicable to the other invention.
As a further example, Applicant argues claims 8 and 18-19 relate to the width of a first transparent region. However, search queries relating to a ratio of a total width of a region (claim 8) will be different than the queries relating to the width of a pixel (claims 18-19). Further still, art related to one invention would not likely be applicable to the other invention.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 2, 5, 6, 18, 19 and 20 will be withdrawn
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8 and 10-17 will be examined on the merits
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over You et al. (USPN 2021/0109388).
With respect to claim 1, You teaches an electronic device able to switch between a first displaying mode and a second displaying mode (Figs. 1-11. At least Fig. 11 and paragraph [0084] teach a first/anti peep mode and Fig. 7 and paragraph [0070] teach a second/two-dimensional plane display mode), comprising:
a display (Figs. 1-11. At least Fig. 1 and paragraph [0046] teach a display); and
a light-adjustable control panel disposed on the display and comprising a plurality of light control units (Figs. 1-11. At least Figs. 1-3B teach light control units including but not limited to LCD strip electrodes), and the light-adjustable control panel comprising:
a first substrate (Fig. 2, item 121 and paragraph [0050]. Examiner notes the bottom item reads on a first substrate);
a second substrate disposed opposite to the first substrate (Fig. 2, item 121 and paragraph [0050]. Examiner notes the top item reads on a second substrate); and
a display medium sandwiched between the first substrate and the second substrate (Fig. 2, item 122 and paragraph [0050] teach a liquid crystal medium, wherein the plurality of light control units form a plurality of first transparent regions and a plurality of non-transparent regions alternately arranged through the display medium in the first displaying mode (Figs. 1-11. At least Figs. 3A and 3B and 11, items 21 and 22 and paragraphs [0051] and [0084] teach light-transmitting regions and light-shielding regions are alternately arranged during a first/anti peep mode), and the plurality of light control units form a second transparent region through the display medium in the second displaying mode (Figs. 1-11. At least Fig. 7, item 22 and paragraph [0070] teach a fully transparent second/two-dimensional plane display mode),
wherein a ratio of a total area of the plurality of the first transparent regions to a total area of the plurality of light control units is different from a ratio of an area of the second transparent region to the total area of the plurality of light control units (Figs. 1-11. At least Fig. 7 has a different number of transparent regions than Fig. 11. Examiner notes the claim does not require any specific ratio and a reasonably broad interpretation includes the teachings of You).
However, You fails to expressly teach all of the limitations in a single embodiment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the various teachings of You because paragraphs [0089] suggest modifications to the disclosed embodiments.
With respect to claim 3, You teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, discussed above, wherein a ratio of an area of one of the plurality of first transparent regions to a total area of one of the plurality of first transparent regions and one of the plurality of non-transparent regions is greater than or equal to 14% and less than or equal to 50% (You, Figs. 1-11. At least Figs. 7 and 11, item 22 and paragraphs [0070] and [0084]. Examiner notes the first/anti peep mode has alternating transparent regions and the second/two-dimensional plane display mode has full transparent regions such that they read on a 50% ratio).
With respect to claim 4, You teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, discussed above, wherein at least one of the plurality of light control units forms one of the plurality of first transparent regions, and at least another one of the plurality of light control units form one of the plurality of non-transparent regions (You, Figs. 1-11. At least Figs. 3A and 3B and paragraphs [0051]-[0055]).
Claim(s) 7, 10, 12, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over You et al. (USPN 2021/0109388) in view of Liou et al. (USPN 2020/0371386).
With respect to claim 7, You teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, discussed above.
However, You fails to expressly teach wherein the display comprises a plurality of light emitting elements and a third substrate, and the third substrate is disposed between the plurality of light emitting elements and the light-adjustable control panel (You, Figs. 5A and 5B and paragraph [0059] teaches a backlight but are silent on specific structure of the backlight).
Liou teaches a known technique using a backlight in addition to a liquid crystal display wherein the backlight includes a substrate and a plurality of light emitting elements (Fig. 1, items 124 and LE and paragraphs [0025]-[0033]).
You teaches a base process/product of a display including a backlight which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement in that the display comprises a plurality of light emitting elements and a third substrate, and the third substrate is disposed between the plurality of light emitting elements and the light-adjustable control panel. Liou teaches a known technique of using a backlight in addition to a liquid crystal display wherein the backlight includes a substrate and a plurality of light emitting elements that is comparable to the base process/product.
Liou’s known technique of using a backlight in addition to a liquid crystal display wherein the backlight includes a substrate and a plurality of light emitting elements would have been recognized by one skilled in the art as applicable to the base process/product of You and the results would have been predictable and resulted in the display comprising a plurality of light emitting elements and a third substrate, and the third substrate is disposed between the plurality of light emitting elements and the light-adjustable control panel which results in an improved process/product.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 10, You teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, discussed above.
However, You fails to expressly teach wherein the display comprises a plurality of pixels, the plurality of pixels comprise a first display region and a second display region, the first display region is overlapped with one of the plurality of first transparent regions, and the second display region is not overlapped with one of the plurality of first transparent regions (You, Fig. 7 and paragraph [0070] teaches a LCD including control of liquid crystal cells but is silent on specific pixels).
Liou teaches a known technique using a liquid crystal display such that the display comprises a plurality of pixels and first/second display regions (Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0025]-[0033] and [0036]-[0038]). Specifically, Liou teaches wherein the display comprises a plurality of pixels (Fig. 1, items SP and paragraphs [0033] and [0036]-[0038]. Examiners a full display with all pixels includes an arbitrary amount of a plurality of pixels), the plurality of pixels comprise a first display region and a second display region (Fig. 1, items SP and paragraphs [0033]-[0036]-[0038]. An arbitrary grouping of pixels read on a first/second display region).
You teaches a base process/product of a display which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement in that the display comprises a plurality of pixels, the plurality of pixels comprise a first display region and a second display region, the first display region is overlapped with one of the plurality of first transparent regions, and the second display region is not overlapped with one of the plurality of first transparent regions. Liou teaches a known technique of using a backlight in addition to a liquid crystal display such that the display comprises a plurality of pixels and first/second display regions that is comparable to the base process/product.
Liou’s known technique of using a backlight in addition to a liquid crystal display such that the display comprises a plurality of pixels and first/second display regions would have been recognized by one skilled in the art as applicable to the base process/product of You and the results would have been predictable and resulted in wherein the display comprises a plurality of pixels, the plurality of pixels comprise a first display region and a second display region, the first display region is overlapped with one of the plurality of first transparent regions, and the second display region is not overlapped with one of the plurality of first transparent regions which results in an improved process/product.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
To clarify, the combination of You in view of Liou teach the first display region is overlapped with one of the plurality of first transparent regions, and the second display region is not overlapped with one of the plurality of first transparent regions. Examiner notes the claim does not require any specific positional relationship among the first and second display regions. Therefore, a reasonably broad interpretation includes an arbitrary first display region that overlaps an arbitrary first transparent region and an arbitrary second display region that does not overlap the arbitrary first transparent region.
The further limitations of claim 12 are rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 10, discussed above.
To clarify, the combination of You in view of Liou teach the first display region and the second display region are not overlapped with the plurality of first transparent regions. Examiner notes the claim does not require any specific positional relationship among the first and second display regions. Therefore, a reasonably broad interpretation includes an arbitrary first display region that does not overlap an arbitrary first transparent region and an arbitrary second display region that does not overlap the arbitrary first transparent region.
With respect to claim 14, You in view of Liou teach the electronic device according to claim 12, wherein the plurality of pixels further comprises a dark region (Liou, Fig. 1, items SP and paragraph [0033], [0036]-[0038] and [0068]. Examiner notes a dark region reads on a pixel that is part of a black image), and the dark region is overlapped with one of the plurality of the first transparent regions (You, Figs. 3A, 3B and 11, item 21 teaches a light-transmitting region. Examiner notes the claim does not require any specific positional for a dark region. Therefore, a reasonably broad interpretation includes an arbitrary first dark region that overlaps an arbitrary first transparent region).
The further limitations of claim 15 are rejected for substantially the same reasons as claims 10 and 14, discussed above.
To clarify, the combination of You in view of Liou teach wherein the display comprises a plurality of pixels, the plurality of pixels comprise a first display region and a dark region, the first display region is overlapped with one of the plurality of first transparent regions, and the dark region is overlapped with one of the plurality of non-transparent regions. Examiner notes the claim does not require any specific positional relationship among the first display region and a dark region. Therefore, a reasonably broad interpretation includes an arbitrary first display region that overlaps an arbitrary first transparent region and an arbitrary dark region that overlaps an arbitrary non-transparent region.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 9, 11, 13, 16 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record teaches a display including display modes with different transparent and non-transparent regions (see at least You et al. USPN 2021/0109388).
However, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest Applicant’s specifically claimed:
“electronic device according to claim 7, wherein a ratio of a total width of one of the plurality of first transparent regions and one of the plurality of non-transparent regions to a distance between the display medium and one of the plurality of light emitting elements is greater than or equal to 0.5 and less than or equal to 2” (claim 8 –emphasis added);
“electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the display comprises a plurality of pixels, and a brightness of a maximum gray scale value of one of the plurality of pixels in the second displaying mode is in a range of 12% to 60% of a brightness of a maximum gray scale value of the one of the plurality of pixels in the first displaying mode” (claim 9 – emphasis added);
“electronic device according to claim 10, wherein the plurality of pixels further comprise a first light adjusting region disposed between the first display region and the second display region” (claim 11);
“electronic device according to claim 12, wherein the plurality of pixels further comprise two first light adjusting regions and two second light adjusting regions, the first light adjusting regions are disposed on two sides of the second display region, and the second light adjusting regions are disposed on two sides of the first display region” (claim 13); and
“electronic device according to claim 15, wherein the plurality of pixels further comprise two first light adjusting regions disposed on two sides of the first display region” (claim 16).
Claim 17 is dependent on claim 16 and objected to as allowable for substantially the same reasons, discussed above.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Yeh et al. (USPN 2012/0280895), Chen et al. (USPN 2013/0120466) and Broughton et al. (USPN 2010/0214324) teach a display including a privacy mode; and
Chen et al. (USPN 2018/0052263) teaches a display with a privacy filter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTONIO J XAVIER whose telephone number is (571)270-7688. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 830am-5pm PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, PATRICK EDOUARD can be reached on 571-272-7603. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANTONIO XAVIER/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622