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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The following title is suggested: Transparent Double-Sided Display.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/4/2024 and 2/25/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are: ““. . . the one or more first light emitting elements performing information display ordered from an outside; . . .” as it appears in claim 1, and identical language in [0007] of the specification. The examiner notes that this appears to be a mistranslation. A new translation of the specification can be submitted along with a statement certifying that the specification contains no new matter.
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.
Claim 1 is 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 states “. . . the one or more first light emitting elements performing information display ordered from an outside; . . .” The claim scope is indefinite because it is unclear what is being referred to by “ordered from an outside.” For the purposes of this action, “ordered from an outside” will be interpreted to mean “from an outside signal.”
Claims 2-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for at least the reasons stated above (as they depend on independent claim 1).
Claim 9 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 9 states: “. . . a light emission intensity of the first color is smaller than a light emission intensity of the second color . . .” The examiner notes that this claim is drawn to a method of using the device (for example, the use of the display device to display a compound color which is a mix of the first color and to a far greater degree, a second color, meaning that the light emission intensity of the first color is smaller than a light emission intensity of a second color). A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.2d 1377, 1384, 77 USPQ2d 1140, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2005). For the purposes of examination, claim 9 will be interpreted to mean that a maximum possible light emission intensity of the first color is smaller than a maximum possible light emission intensity of the second color.
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.
The examiner notes that foreign patent literature is relied upon in this office action. All quotes, paragraph numbers, and figure numbers of foreign patent literature refer to the translations thereof attached to this office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 7-8, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 20220005882 A1) in view of Zhou (US 20210384269 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches, in FIG. 7, a display device comprising a first display comprising “first display layer” 3003. FIG. 2 shows a detailed display panel comprising a non-transmission area that includes “organic light emitting area” 1007 (which does not transmit background light); paragraph [0078] states “. . . the double-sided display panel may also comprise data lines 40 . . . the data line 40 is configured to provide a data signal for first pixel units in one column of the adjacent two columns of pixel units and to provide a data signal for second pixel units” (the one or more first light emitting elements performing information display ordered from an outside signal). FIG. 7 further shows “second display layer” 3004 bonded to the first transparent display. [0084] states “the first display layer 3003 and the second display layer 3004 are opposite to each other, and the first pixel unit and the second pixel unit disposed opposite to each other respectively in the first display layer 3003 and the second display layer 3004.” The examiner notes that this teaches second pixel units (non-transmission area) in the second display area, which overlap with the first transmission area. Additionally, FIG. 1 and [0038] teach: “The first display layer 10 comprises a plurality of first pixel units. . . which are arranged periodically . . . which are stacked in one-to-one correspondence with the plurality of first pixel units in a direction away from the second display layer” (for example, 101a is a first non-transmission area, 201a is a second transmission area, 201b is a third transmission area, 102b is a fourth transmission area). Furthermore, FIG. 1 shows that the third non-transmission area is hidden by the fourth non-transmission area when viewing the display device while facing the first transparent display.
The examiner also notes that [0093] states: “For example, the base substrate 1001 is a transparent substrate . . .” [0107] states: “. . . a second electrode 1006a and a connection electrode 1006b can be formed. For example, an electrode thin film may be formed . . . to form the second electrode 1006a and the connection electrode 1006b. For example, a material of the electrode thin film may comprise a transparent metal oxide.”
Li does not explicitly teach transmission areas (although Li teaches the use of transparent materials). Li also does not teach that an area of the third non-transmission area is smaller than an area of the fourth non-transmission area.
Zhou teaches, in FIG. 3. a display device comprising “pixel units” 305 separated by “light transmissive regions” 301.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device taught by Li such that the area around the non-transmission areas (which already comprises many transparent components) be made into full transmission areas, as taught by Zhou; additionally, it is obvious that manufacturing tolerances cannot create two non-transmission areas of exact same area, and of one two transmission areas which overlap will have one of smaller area (the smaller area non-display area may be called the third non-transmission area, and one with larger area may be called the fourth non-transmission area). One having ordinary skill in the art is motivated to create transmission areas because, for example, this allows for a transparent device, which increases economic viability. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding claim 3, Zhou further teaches, in FIG. 3 transmission areas and non-transmission areas which are formed in a lattice shape.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the device taught by Li such that the transmission areas and the non-transmission areas are formed in a dotted shape, as taught by Zhou. One having ordinary skill in the art is motivated to do so because, for example, this “. . . allows the pixel units at the peripheries of the light transmissive regions to have an ideal shape, thereby . . . improving image quality of the display panel” (Zhou [0072]).
Regarding claim 4, Zhou further teaches, in FIG. 3, transmission areas and non-transmission areas that are formed in a dotted shape. The examiner notes that lattice shaped and dotted shapes are not mutually exclusive.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the device taught by Li such that the transmission areas and the non-transmission areas are formed in a dotted shape, as taught by Zhou. One having ordinary skill in the art is motivated to do so because, for example, this “. . . allows the pixel units at the peripheries of the light transmissive regions to have an ideal shape, thereby . . . improving image quality of the display panel” (Zhou [0072]).
Regarding claim 7, Li further teaches, in FIG. 3, that a total area of the one or more first non-transmission areas is not larger than a total area of the one or more second non-transmission areas.
Regarding claim 8, Li further teaches that a total area of the one or more first non-transmission areas is not smaller than a total area of the one or more second non-transmission areas.
Regarding claim 9, Zhou further teaches, in FIG. 3, that the one or more first light emitting elements include one or more third light emitting elements emitting light in a first color, and one or more fourth light emitting elements emitting light in a second color different from the first color, and areas of the one or more third light emitting elements are larger than areas of the one or more fourth light emitting elements (see RGB sub-pixels). The examiner notes that maximum light emission intensities are governed, in part, by the area of the light emitting elements; therefore, a maximum possible light emission intensity of the first color is smaller than a maximum possible light emission intensity of the second color, due to their relative areas.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to further modify the device taught by Li such that the one or more first light emitting elements include one or more third light emitting elements emitting light in a first color, and one or more fourth light emitting elements emitting light in a second color different from the first color, and areas of the one or more third light emitting elements are larger than areas of the one or more fourth light emitting elements, as taught by Zhou. One having ordinary skill in the art is motivated to do so because, for example, bias the display panel to have a certain color mixture, such as a low-blue light display (wherein blue light sub-pixels are smaller and emit less intensely), increasing economic viability. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding claim 11, as explained above, Li teaches “second electrode” and “connection electrode” which can be formed of transparent materials. Furthermore, they are disposed in the non-pixel areas (which are the non-display areas, when combined with Zhou, as explained above).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 20220005882 A1) in view of Zhou (US 20210384269 A1) in further view of Kawamura (JP 2003345271 A).
Regarding claim 2, as explained above, Li and Zhou teach the limitations of claim 1. They do not teach that the one or more transmission areas and the one or more second non-transmission areas are each formed in a stripe shape.
Kawamura teaches, in FIG. 1, a “double-sided display” in which there are “striped row electrode[s]” 2a and 2b, and “In the display device of the present embodiment, both electrodes 2a and 2b are transparent electrodes” (paragraph 3 of Embodiment 1). In addition, FIG. 1 also shows “EL light emitting area” 3 disposed in stripe shapes.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device taught by Li such that the one or more first non-transmission areas and the one or more second non-transmission areas are each formed in a stripe shape, as taught by Kawamura. One having ordinary skill in the art is motivated to do so because, for example, this enables the creation of distinct display areas (pixels) which allows for an operable display device for the display of images. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 20220005882 A1) in view of in view of Zhou (US 20210384269 A1) in further view of Choonghyo (KR 20190068934 A).
Regarding claim 12, as explained above, Li and Zhou teach the limitations of claim 1. They do not teach a transparent adhesive binding the first and second transparent displays.
Choonghyo teaches, in paragraph 31 of Description: “ an adhesive layer (not shown) is disposed between the first display panel 100 and the light control device 200, and between the light control device 200 and the second display panel 300, ), The light control device 200, and the second display panel 300 can be bonded. The adhesive layer (not shown) may be a transparent adhesive such as OCA (optically clear adhesive) or a transparent adhesive such as OCR (optically clear resin).”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the device taught by Li such that the first and second display devices are bonded to each other by a transparent adhesive, as taught by Choonghyo. One having ordinary skill in the art is motivated to do so because, for example, this enables the display devices to display in two different directions and also retain transparency. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
S. Li (US 20060279205 A1) – "A conventional dual emitting device usually includes two adhered single-side panels . . .” additionally FIG. 1 and [0006] discuss transparent substrates, emission layers which are aligned back-to-back.
Kuhlman (US 8362992 B2) – Dual view transparent display which uses dual – emitting OLEDs and light shutters to regulate light emission on either side of the display.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL S MINNEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9688. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Friday, 8:30 a.m. 5 p.m. ET..
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, Jacob Choi can be reached at (469) 295-9060. 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.
/G.S.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/JACOB Y CHOI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights