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 Amendment
Claims 1-3 are currently pending in the present application. Claim 1 is currently amended; claims 2-3 are original; and claims 4-5 are canceled. The amendment dated July 22, 2026 has been entered into the record.
Response to Arguments
(1) The applicant argues that Figure 1C of the present application illustrates the technical feature of claim 3: “a width of one of the two adjacent light shielding patterns is less than the thickness of one of the two adjacent light shielding patterns” (Remarks, Pages 3-4).
Applicant's arguments with respect to the feature in claim 3 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive by the following reasons: Patent drawings cannot be relied upon to determine specific dimensions or proportions unless explicitly stated to be scale (see MPEP 2125 “When the reference does not disclose that the drawings are to scale and is silent as to dimensions, arguments based on measurement of the drawing features are of little value”). In this case, the examiner considers the drawing is not expressly labeled as being to scale and the specification does not identify a width of light shielding patterns. Furthermore, it is not clear if the width of light shielding patterns U12 indicates the width of the upper surface of U12 or the width of the lower surface of U12, since a width of U12 was not described in the originally filed specification. When issued patent drawings are not explicitly made to scale, the Federal Circuit confirmed that arguments relying solely or predominately on the features of those drawings, such as line thickness, are “unavailing.” The Regents of the University of California v. Satco Products, Inc., Appeal No. 2023-1356 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 4, 2024). The examiner also notifies the applicant that the application should be redesignated as a continuation-in-part by the reasons stated above.
(2) The applicant further argues Kashiwagi does not disclose the newly amended claim 1. Regarding the newly amended claim 1, see 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3 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 1 recites
“A display device, comprising:
a display panel; and
an optical structure overlapping with the display panel,
wherein the optical structure comprises two adjacent light shielding patterns, and the two adjacent light shielding patterns extend in a direction in a top view,
wherein in a cross section view, a pitch of the two adjacent light shielding patterns is less than a thickness of one of the two adjacent light shielding patterns; and
a layer, wherein the optical structure is disposed between the layer and the display panel, and the layer comprises a plurality of protruding structures, the protruding structures extend along another direction, and the another direction is different from the direction,
wherein a pitch of the plurality of protruding structures is greater than the pitch of the two adjacent light shielding patterns”.
Accordingly, the display device according to claim 1 comprises:
“a display panel”
______________
“an optical structure” (i.e., light shielding patterns U12)
______________
“a layer” (i.e., protruding structures U11)
The remarks in the 7/22/2026 amendment states that U12 is the light shielding pattern (Page 4). Thereby, it appears protruding structures are U11 (see Figs. 1A, 1C and 1D) (the examiner further notes that the term “protruding structures” are not identified in the originally filed specification. Because the applicant already recites U12 as the light shielding pattern, U11 is interpreted as protruding structures).
However, Figure 1C of the present application illustrates that U11 is disposed between the display panel and the layer. Accordingly, it is not clear what the newly amended claim 1 recites in light of the present specification and Remarks. Thereby as being indefinite, claim 1 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter.
Claims 2-3 are rejected because they depend upon claim 1; they are likewise rejected under the same rationale as that set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3 are objected to as being rejected under 35 USC §112(b) set forth above, but would be allowable if the claims are rewritten to overcome said rejections.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the prior art of Kashiwagi (US 20110170194), of record, discloses a display device (Figs. 1-2 and 5; see Paras. [0024]-[0025] and [0029] identifying the embodiment shown in Figs. 1-2 and 5), comprising:
a display panel (2 in Fig. 5; Para. [0062] “a plasma panel 2 (hereinafter also referred to as “PDP 2”)”; and
an optical structure (14 in Figs. 1-2; Para. [0035]) overlapping with the display panel,
wherein the optical structure comprises two adjacent light shielding patterns (two light absorbing portions of 14 in Fig. 2; see Para. [0039] “a part of the image light can be reflected at the interfaces of the light absorbing portions 14”), and the two adjacent light shielding patterns extend in a direction in a top view (see Para. [0032] teaching individual layers in 10 extend in the front and rear directions of the plane of paper while maintaining the cross section shown in FIG. 1),
wherein in a cross section view, a pitch of the two adjacent light shielding patterns is less than a thickness of one of the two adjacent light shielding patterns (TABLE 1; for example, see “Optical functional layer No. 1” teaches a pitch of 85.0 μm and a depth of 120.2 μm), and
a layer (11; Para. [0032]), wherein the optical structure is disposed between the layer and the display panel.
And the prior art of Goto (US 20060245060) further discloses providing a layer comprising a plurality of protruding structures (123 in Fig. 14; the optical structure 122, i.e., a view angle control sheet, is disposed between a layer 123 comprising protruding structures and a display panel 121; Para. [0100]), the protruding structures extend along another direction, and the another direction is different from the direction (see Fig. 14).
However, Kashiwagi and Goto fail to explicitly disclose, in light of the specifications, “a pitch of the plurality of protruding structures is greater than the pitch of the two adjacent light shielding patterns”. The examiner further considered Kuki et al. (US 20210109259, hereinafter “Kuki”), Kanno et al. (US 20170153364, hereinafter “Kanno”) and Yamashita et al. (US 20090091824, hereinafter “Yamashita”). However, Kashiwagi, Goto, Kuki, Kanno and Yamashita, applied alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the combination and arrangement of elements recited in Applicant's claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-3 are allowable by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JONATHAN Y JUNG whose telephone number is (469)295-9076. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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 H Caley can be reached on (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 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.
/JONATHAN Y JUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights