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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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
Claims 2-6 and 10-27 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04 February 2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species VI, corresponding to originally filed Claims 1 and 7-9, in the reply filed on 04 February 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: the claimed “resistance circuit” as recited in Claims 8 and 9.
The claimed “resistance circuit” recites a generic placeholder, namely the claimed “circuit” that is coupled with the function imparted by the term “resistance.” In other words, the term “resistance circuit” relates to a generic “circuit” that performs the function of providing “resistance.” The claimed “resistance circuit” is thereby being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), and according to definition provided by the originally filed Specification, to be a “resistor” as shown in Figure 15 or a “resistance transistor” as shown in Figure 16.
Because this claim limitation is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hong et al. (hereinafter “Hong” US 2023 / 0217763).
As pertaining to Claim 1, Hong discloses (see Fig. 1, Fig. 5, Fig. 9, and Fig. 10) a light emitting display panel (110) comprising:
a display area (DA) that is divided into a plurality of light emitting areas (i.e., rows and columns of pixels (P)) along a first direction (i.e., a horizontal direction) and along a second direction (i.e., a vertical direction) that is different from the first direction (i.e., the horizontal direction) and a non-display area (NDA; see (120, 130, 140)) that is outside the display area (DA), each of the plurality of light emitting areas (i.e., rows and columns of pixels (P)) including a plurality of subpixels (SP; see Fig. 9) in the light emitting area (P; see Page 5, Para. [0058]-[0059] and [0064]-[0066]); and
a plurality of viewing angle switching units (see (EG2, EG3) in Fig. 10) in the non-display area (NDA), each viewing angle switching unit (EG2, EG3) connected to the plurality of subpixels (see (EM2, EM3) in Fig. 9) included in a corresponding light emitting area (P) from the plurality of light emitting areas (P; see Page 12 through Page 13, Para. [0166]-[0167], [0169], and [0174]-[0183]; and note that the viewing angle switching units (EG2, EG3) are repeated at least for each row of pixels (P)),
wherein each of the plurality of subpixels (again, see Fig. 9) includes:
a first light emitting unit (D1) driven by a first viewing angle control transistor (T4) that is controlled by a viewing angle switching unit (EG2, EG3) from the plurality of viewing angle switching units (EG2, EG3) that is connected to the subpixel (see (EM2)), the first light emitting unit (D1) including a first lens (i.e., see (CL) in Fig. 5) having a first shape; and
a second light emitting unit (D2) driven by a second viewing angle control transistor (T5) that is controlled by the viewing angle switching unit (EG2, EG3) that is connected to the subpixel (see (EM3)), the second light emitting unit (D2) including a second lens (i.e., see (SL) in Fig. 5) having a second shape that is different from the first shape of the first lens (CL),
wherein each viewing angle switching unit (EG2, EG3) is connected to one of the plurality of light emitting areas (P),
wherein each of the plurality of light emitting areas (P) includes a portion (i.e., any arbitrary portion) of the subpixels (SP) disposed along the first direction (i.e., the horizontal direction) and a portion (i.e., any arbitrary portion) of the subpixels (SP) disposed along the second direction (i.e., the vertical direction; see Fig. 1), and
wherein the portion (i.e., the arbitrary portion) includes more than two (i.e., three) but less than all of the subpixels (SP) disposed along the first direction (i.e., the horizontal direction) or the second direction (i.e., the vertical direction; again, see Fig. 1 for any arbitrarily defined portions of the subpixels (SP); and see Page 6, Para. [0075]-[0080]; Page 7, Para. [0092]-[0096]; and Page 11, Para. [0149] and [0154]-[0155]).
As pertaining to Claim 7, Hong discloses (see Fig. 10) a viewing angle switching unit (EG2, EG3) from the plurality of viewing angle switching units (EG2, EG3) includes:
a first switching unit (EG2) connected to gates of first viewing angle control transistors (T4) that are included in a corresponding light emitting area (P) from the plurality of light emitting areas (P); and
a second switching unit (EG3) connected to gates of second viewing angle control transistors (T5) that are included in the corresponding light emitting area (P; again, see Page 12 through Page 13, Para. [0166]-[0167], [0169], and [0174]-[0183]; and note that the viewing angle switching units (EG2, EG3) are connected to corresponding rows of pixels (P)).
As pertaining to Claim 8, Hong discloses (see Fig. 10) that the first switching unit (EG2) includes:
a first transistor unit (Tw1) connected to a first control signal line (EM2) that is connected to the gates of the first viewing angle control transistors (T4) included in the corresponding light emitting area (P) and a low voltage line (Vl) that supplies a low voltage (i.e., (Vl)); and
a first resistance circuit (Tw2) connected to the first control signal line (EM2) and a high voltage line (SCAN) that supplies a high voltage (Vh) that is greater than the low voltage (Vl; see Fig. 11), and
the second switching unit (EG3) includes:
a second transistor unit (Tn2) connected to the high voltage line (SCAN) and a second control signal line (EM3) that is connected to the gates of the second viewing angle control transistors (T5) included in the corresponding light emitting area (P); and
a second resistance circuit (Tn1) connected to the second control signal line (EM3) and the low voltage line (Vl; see Page 13, Para. [0174]-[0184]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is 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: none of the references relied upon by the examiner, considered alone or in reasonable combination, teach or fairly suggest the combination of features recited in Claim 1, 7, and 8, further including the features “wherein the first transistor unit includes a first control transistor comprising a gate of the first control transistor that is connected to a viewing angle control line that applies a viewing angle control signal to the gate of the first control transistor, a first terminal of the first control transistor that is connected to the low voltage line, and a second terminal of the first control transistor that is connected to the first resistance circuit, wherein the second transistor unit includes a second control transistor that comprises a gate of the second control transistor that is connected to the viewing angle control line, a first terminal of the second control transistor that is connected to the high voltage line, and a second terminal of the second control transistor that is connected to the second resistance circuit” as recited in dependent Claim 9.
As pertaining to the most relevant prior art relied upon by the examiner, Hong et al. discloses all of the features of Claims 1, 7, and 8. Further, Hong et al. discloses (see Fig. 10) that the first transistor unit (Tw1) includes a first control transistor (i.e., (Tw1)) comprising a gate of the first control transistor (Tw1) that is connected to a viewing angle control line (WV1) that applies a viewing angle control signal (see (WV1)) to the gate of the first control transistor (Tw1), a first terminal of the first control transistor (Tw1) that is connected to the low voltage line (Vl), and a second terminal of the first control transistor (Tw1) that is connected to the first resistance circuit (Tw2), wherein the second transistor unit (Tn2) includes a second control transistor (i.e., (Tn2)) that comprises a gate of the second control transistor (Tn2) that is connected to another viewing angle control line (NV2), a first terminal of the second control transistor (Tn2) that is connected to the high voltage line (SCAN), and a second terminal of the second control transistor (Tn2) that is connected to the second resistance circuit (Tn1; again, see Page 13, Para. [0174]-[0184]).
Hong et al. does not explicitly disclose that the gate of the first control transistor (Tw1) and the gate of the second control transistor (Tn2) are connected to a same viewing angle control line to receive the same viewing angle control signal.
In fact, none of the references relied upon by the examiner, considered alone or in reasonable combination, teach or fairly suggest all of the features of Claims 1, 7, and 8, in combination with the features of dependent Claim 9. The claimed combination of features appears to be suggested solely by the applicant’s disclosure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Firstly, the applicant has amended Claims 8 and 9 to recite a “resistance circuit” instead of a “resistance unit” in order to avoid claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (see Remarks at Page15). Respectfully, there is no structural distinction between a “resistance circuit” and a “resistance unit.” That is, neither the term “resistance circuit” nor the term “resistance unit” impart any structural definition to the claimed feature. The term “resistance circuit” merely replaces the generic placeholder “unit” with the generic placeholder “circuit” without defining a structure that performs the function of providing “resistance.” The term “resistance circuit” relates to a generic “circuit” that performs the function of providing “resistance.” The claimed “resistance circuit” is thereby being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) in the same manner as the previously claimed “resistance unit.”
The applicant has further argued that none of the references relied upon by the examiner in the prior Office Action, namely Hong, teach or fairly suggest the newly recited features “wherein each viewing angle switching unit is connected to one of the plurality of light emitting areas, wherein each of the plurality of light emitting areas includes a portion of the subpixels disposed along the first direction and a portion of the subpixels disposed along the second direction, and wherein the portion includes more than two but less than all of the subpixels disposed along the first direction or the second direction” (see Remarks at Pages 15 through 17). The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The examiner respectfully reminds the applicant that the claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the originally filed disclosure without reading features from the disclosure into the claims. In this regard, Hong plainly discloses that each viewing angle switching unit (EG2, EG3) is connected to one of the plurality of light emitting areas (P). Hong further discloses that each of the plurality of light emitting areas (P) includes an arbitrarily defined portion of the subpixels (SP) disposed along the first horizontal direction and an arbitrarily defined portion of the subpixels (SP) disposed along the second vertical direction (see Fig. 1). There is nothing recited in the claims that define the claimed “portions” as anything other than arbitrarily defined groupings of subpixels (SP). In this regard, Hong further discloses that the arbitrarily defined portion includes more than two, namely three, but less than all of the subpixels (SP) disposed along the first horizontal direction or the second vertical direction.
Therefore, the rejection of Claims 1 and 7-8 is maintained. Claim 9 remains 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shin et al. (US 2022 / 0399529) at Figure 12 discloses the claimed subpixels comprising a first light emitting unit and a second light emitting unit each having a lens with a different shape, respectively.
Lee et al. (US 2020 / 0184896) at Figure 2 discloses a switching unit comprising a transistor and a resistance unit in combination.
Shikina et al. (US 2011 / 0284881) generally discloses a means for providing different viewing angles in a display device using subpixels having first and second light emitting units.
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 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 JASON M MANDEVILLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3136. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30AM-4:00PM.
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, Chanh Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-7772. 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.
/JASON M MANDEVILLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2623
Prosecution Insights