DETAILED ACTION
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5, 8, 12-16 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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, 6-7, 9-11 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. WO 2022-065684 (via WIPO translation) hereinafter referred to as Cho in view of Cho et al. WO2022-197089 hereinafter referred to as Cho ‘089 (via WIPO translation).
In regards to claim 1, Cho teaches:
“A display device comprising: a mirror display comprising a plurality of blocks”
Cho paragraph [0074] teaches as shown in FIG. 3A, it is assumed that the mirror display 110 includes m × n pixels. In this case, as shown in (b) of FIG. 3, the region 30 May have a size corresponding to a × b pixels. Figures 14-22 teaches regions as well.
“and at least one processor configured to control at least one of a reflectance and display of the plurality of blocks”
Cho paragraph [0060] teaches according to an embodiment of the disclosure, the display apparatus 100 May adjust the reflectance of the area in which the application is displayed on the mirror display 110 based on the reflectance set for each application. Cho paragraph [0119] teaches the processor 130 May adjust the reflectance of the area in which each application is displayed on the mirror display 110 based on the reflectance corresponding to each application.
“wherein the at least one processor is configured to: control first blocks among the plurality of blocks to display a content”
Cho paragraph [0139] and Figure 10 teaches the processor 130 May adjust the reflectance of the area in which the image 1020 provided by the video application is displayed to 0%, but may adjust the reflectance to a preset reflectance, for example, 50%. The Examiner interprets that the area where the content 1020 is displayed is equivalent to the plurality of blocks to display content.
“control second blocks among the plurality of blocks to have a first reflectance providing at least a part of a mirror image on a front side of the mirror display”
Cho Figure 10 illustrates the area outside of the displayed content 1020 has a first reflectance.
“identify a second part of the mirror image corresponding to the first blocks …, and control the first blocks to display the second part of the mirror image and the content by combining the content and the second part of the mirror image”
Cho paragraph [0139] and Figure 10 teaches the processor 130 May adjust the reflectance of the area in which the image 1020 provided by the video application is displayed to 0%, but may adjust the reflectance to a preset reflectance, for example, 50%. The Examiner interprets the portion of the reflected image that lies within the first blocks (displayed content 1020 region) are equivalent to first blocks to display the second part of the mirror image and the content by combining the content and the second part. Cho Figures 11b, 12a and 13 illustrate similar combining of content.
Cho does not explicitly teach:
“a camera” and “[identify a location] based on an image captured by the camera”
Cho ‘089 teaches in [0092] the other first sensor 120 in this revelation may include an image sensor 120, and the processor 140 may acquire a second image corresponding to the user 10 through the image sensor 120. Cho teaches in [0094] the processor 140 can detect the user contained in the second image through the first neural network model and acquire image data for the region containing the user 10. The processor 140 can acquire pose information about the user 10 based on the information about the feature points or skeletons of the user 10 contained in the image data. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Cho in view of Cho’089 to have included the features of “a camera” and “[identify a location] based on an image captured by the camera” because it is necessary to have a technology that improves the visibility of the content/information displayed on the mirror display (Cho ‘089 [0004]).
In regards to claim 6, Cho/Cho ‘089 teach all the limitations of claim 1 and further teach:
“wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: control at least one third block, among the first blocks, to combine the content displayed by the at least one third block and the second part of the mirror image”
Cho Figure 3b illustrates that the mirror display is composed of an array of square blocks. The Examiner interprets that if the displayed content 1020 requires more than one block to display then one of these blocks can be interpreted as an at least one third block. Figures 9-10, 11b and 12a would appear to require more than on square region for displaying the content because at the very least the content is displayed rectangular and not square. Furthermore, it would not provide an unpredictable results to display the content using more than one region. It has been held that “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results.” KSR., 127 S. Ct. at 1739, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 (2007) (Citing Graham, 383 U.S. at 12).
In regards to claim 7, Cho/Cho ‘089 teach all the limitations of claim 1 and further teach:
“wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: adjust a size of the content displayed on the first blocks such that a boundary of the content corresponds to boundaries among the plurality of blocks”
Cho paragraph [0194] teach the processor 130 May match the display area of the application with at least one of the plurality of areas by changing at least one of the location and size of the display area of the application so as not to overlap the area where another application is displayed on the mirror display 110.
In regards to claim 9, Cho/Cho ‘089 teach all the limitations of claim 1 and further teach:
“wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: control at least one third block, among the first blocks, to display a predetermined image in an area excluding an area in which the at least one third block displays the content”
Cho paragraph [0181] and Figure 14 teaches the display area 1410 of the application does not match at least one of the plurality of areas of the mirror display 110. As another example, the display region 1420 of the application may be regarded as matching a region including two regions 1430 and 1440 among the plurality of regions.
In regards to claim 10, Cho/Cho ‘089 teach all the limitations of claim 1 and further teach:
“wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: control a reflectance of the plurality of blocks in block units, and wherein the plurality of blocks have a same size”
Cho paragraph [0060] teaches the display apparatus 100 May adjust the reflectance of the area in which the application is displayed on the mirror display 110 based on the reflectance set for each application. Cho Figures 14-22 illustrates regions of the same size.
In regards to claim 11, Cho/Cho ‘089 teach all the limitations of claim 1 and claim 11 contains similar limitations. Therefore claim 11 is rejected for similar reasoning as applied to claim 1.
In regards to claim 17, Cho/Cho ‘089 teach all the limitations of claim 11 and claim 17 contains similar limitations as in claim 7. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected for similar reasoning as applied to claim 7.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amended feature which requires the combining of the content and the second part of the mirror image is not taught by Cho. However, it was noted during the interview that the combining feature which is different from overlapping, is meant to include the feature of having a region where the displayed content is transparent and the mirror image is visible through the displayed content. Applicant pointed to Figure 6 and indicated the overlapping area which displays content over the mirror image and the combined area, the frame area, which displays the mirror image. Cho paragraph [0139] and Figure 10 teaches the processor 130 May adjust the reflectance of the area in which the image 1020 provided by the video application is displayed to 0%, but may adjust the reflectance to a preset reflectance, for example, 50%. The Examiner interprets the portion of the reflected image that lies within the first blocks (displayed content 1020 region) are equivalent to first blocks to display the second part of the mirror image and the content by combining the content and the second part. Cho Figures 11b, 12a and 13 illustrate similar combining of content.
In regards to claim 6, the change in scope of claim 1 required a new interpretation of the reference in relation to the features of claim 6.
In regards to the rejoinder of claim 18, currently claim 18 does not require all features of claim 1 and therefore is not eligible for rejoinder. Applicant is advised that rejoinder will take place if claim 18 at the time of allowance requires all features of an allowable claim. If this is not the case then rejoinder is not permitted.
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 MICHAEL E TEITELBAUM, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-5996. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5:00PM EST.
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, John Miller can be reached at 571-272-7353. 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.
/MICHAEL E TEITELBAUM, Ph.D./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2422
Prosecution Insights