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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Hong et al. (US. Pub: 2023/0217690 A1~hereinafter “Hong”) of record.
Regarding claim 1, Hong discloses (in at least figs. 1-5) a display device comprising: a first sub-pixel (SP1) in a first area, the first pixel (SP1) including at least one first emission area (EA1) and at least one second emission area (EA2); and a second sub-pixel (SP2) in a second area adjacent to the first area, the second pixel (SP2) including at least one first emission area (EA1) and at least one second emission area (EA2), wherein a half-spherical lens (234) is disposed in the first emission area (EA1) of the second sub-pixel (SP2), and wherein a half-cylindrical lens (232) is disposed in the first emission area (AE1) of the first sub-pixel (SP1), in the second emission area (EA2) of the first sub-pixel (SP1), and in the second emission area (EA2) of the second sub-pixel (SP2).
Regarding claim 2, Hong discloses (in at least figs. 1-8; [0137]) the first emission area (EA1) in the second area is turned on, and the second emission area in the second area is turned off in a first mode.
Regarding claim 3, Hong discloses (in at least figs. 1-8; [0138]) the first emission area in the second area is turned off, and the second emission area in the second area is turned on in a second mode.
Regarding claim 16, Hong discloses (in at least figs. 1-8) a vehicle comprising: a body ([0139]; i.e. the body is an inherit feature of the vehicle) having a motor mounted therein; at least one display panel in the body ([0140]), the at least one display panel including: a first area (EA1) and a second area (EA2) adjacent to the first area on a substrate (110); a first sub-pixel (SP1) in the first area (EA1), the first sub-pixel including at least one of a first emission area and at least one of a second emission area (EA2); and a second sub-pixel (SP2) in the second area, the second sub-pixel (SP2) including at least one of a first emission area (EA1) and the at least one of the second emission area (EA2), wherein the first emission area of the first sub-pixel, the second emission area of the second sub-pixel and the second emission area of the second sub-pixel include a half-spherical lens (232).
The Examiner notes that the claimed subject matter is not consistent with the original specification. However, an additional 112 rejection is not being raised at this time. If the Applicant believes the prior art rejection is incorrect, the Applicant must identify where each limitation is supported in the original specification.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7 and 11-12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 13-15 are allowed.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest a display device comprising: a first area and a second area adjacent to the first area on a substrate; a first sub-pixel in the first area; and a second sub-pixel in the second area, wherein the first sub-pixel and the second sub-pixel have a same color…Claims 9-12 are allowed due their dependency upon claim 8.
Regarding claim 13, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest a display device comprising: a first area and a second area adjacent to the first area on a substrate; a first sub-pixel in the first area; a second sub-pixel in the second area; and lenses respectively corresponding to the first sub-pixel and the second sub-pixel, wherein the first sub-pixel and the second sub-pixel have a same color...Claims 14-16 are allowed due to their dependency upon claim 13.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 ELMITO BREVAL whose telephone number is (571)270-3099. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th~ 7:30-5:30.
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, James R. Greece can be reached at 571-272-3711. 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.
ELMITO BREVAL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2875
/ELMITO BREVAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
