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 § 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, 5-8, 12, 13 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 10,928,695) in view of Kim et al(US 20200278541).
As to claim 1, Chen discloses an apparatus (Fig. 7, (118) comprising: an optical display (Fig. 7, (122L), wherein the optical display comprises a source driver (Fig. 7, (124) positioned opposite a nasal region (non-display region (Figs 4 and 7, (400) between the left array (164L) and the right array (146R); and wherein the optical display comprises at least one chamfer cut along a side of the optical display at a first angle relative to a first edge (Figs. 4, 6-7, col. 10, lines 8-18) upper right inclined slope to the right of the flat upper section) non-adjacent to the source driver (the source driver (Fig. 7, (124) is at the bottom center, while the upper right cut is by the top area), at least an additional chamfer cut implemented at a second angle relative to a second edge (lower right side (Figs. 4, 6-7, and col. 10, lines 8-18).
Chen fails to disclose the first angle has a first value that is smaller than a second value of the second angle.
Kim et al tech an optical display having first angle(e.g. 606) having a first value(3 to 31 degrees) is smaller than a second value of the second angle(e.g. 33 to 57degrees)(see Fig. 8A and [0048, 0070]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Chen with the teaching of Kim et al, so to have different shape of chamfer(see Kim et al's abstract).
As to claim 5, further, Chen discloses a gate driver (Fig. 7, (166R (upper section 90 degrees), and wherein the source driver (Fig. 7, (124) is rotationally positioned at least 90 degrees relative to the gate driver (source driver (124) and (gate driver circuit (166R upper section 90 degrees) are 90 degrees relative from each other).
As to claim 6, Chen discloses, further, the source driver (Fig. 7, (124) generates an active area (AA) (right array (122R) equivalent to a portrait AA in size and aspect ratio (122R has a portrait shape and has a specific aspect ratio).
As to claim 7, further, Chen does not specifically disclose the AA comprises an aspect ratio of 4:3. Examiner takes Official Notice as to the AA comprises an aspect ratio of 4:3. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the aspect ratio of 4:3, in the device of Chen, since aspect ratio, such as 4:3 is a common place in the technical field of optical display devices since it closely matches the human eye's natural field of view, providing a more immersive experience for viewers.
As to claim 8, Chen discloses, further, a display driver integrated circuit (DDIC) (Figs. 7, (124, 166) (col. 8, lines 12-22) comprising a gate driver (166), and a display driver (124), wherein the DDIC is positioned on a back side of the optical display (col. 8, lines 18-22).
As to claim 12, further, Chen does not specifically disclose the source driver is positioned on a left side or a right side of an output region of a landscape panel layout. Examiner takes Official Notice as to the source driver is positioned on a left side or a right side of an output region of a landscape panel layout. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the source driver on a side, in the device of Chen since in a lab or manufacturing environment, it is well known in the art of displays to have the source driver, either on one side or on the top or bottom of the active display area, as desired, to obtain the desired result.
As to claim 13, Chen discloses, further, the chamfer cut (Fig. 7, lower right inclined slope to the right of the flat lower section) is at least a 45-degree angle cut (location of 166R is 45 degrees angle).
As to claim 19, see claims 1 and 5, above.
8. Claim(s) 2-4, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 10,928,695) in view of Kim et al(US 20200278541) and further in view of Kaehler et al. (US 2019/0113752).
As to claims 2, 3, and 20, further, Chen, as anticipated by Kim, does not specifically disclose a flexible printed circuit (FPC) provided opposite the nasal region connecting the optical display with a display driver associated with a landscape panel layout, wherein the FPC is provided on a back side of the optical display.
Kaehler discloses a flexible printed circuit (FPC) (Fig. 2, FLEX 232/272) provided opposite the nasal region (see Fig. 1, (118) connecting the optical display with a display driver associated with a landscape panel layout ([0016](last seven lines), wherein the FPC is provided on a back side of the optical display (the Fig. 2, FLEX border location can be considered on the back side of the display panel (206, 246). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the FPC, as taught by Kaehler, in the device of Chen and Kim, since flexible circuit boards are well known in the art of displays to be used for space savings, and mechanical durability.
As to claim 4, Chen discloses, further, the landscape panel layout (Fig. 7, (118) further comprises a second optical display (Fig. 7, (122R) symmetrically positioned on an opposite side of the nasal region (Figs. 4 and 7, (400) (in symmetry with the left side (122L).
9. Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 10,928,695) in view of Kim et al(US 20200278541) in view of Price et al. (WO 2019139757).
As to claim 9, Chen, further, discloses the DDIC renders a landscape image (DDIC) (Figs. 7, (124, 166) (col. 8, lines 12-22) (the whole device provides a landscape image) by generating a scan initiating from a side of the optical display adjacent to the nasal region (col. 12, lines 51-63). However, Chen, does not specifically disclose the scan has a refresh rate of at least 60 Hz.
Price discloses an optical device having the scan with a refresh rate of at least 60 HZ [0006].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the 60 HZ refresh rate, as taught by Price, in the device of Chen, because it is well known in the art of display scanning to have a refresh rate of 60 HZ because it offers a smooth and clear visual experience for basic tasks like browsing, watching movies, and some gaming.
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claim 10-11 are 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.
11. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 10-11 are allowable since certain key features of the claimed invention are not taught or fairly suggested by the prior art. In claim 10, “wherein the chamfer cut is angled to increase a distance between two optical regions and create an interpupillary distance (IPD) margin to fit at least one lens”. The closest prior art of record, Chen (US 10,928,695), singularly or in combination, fails to anticipate or render the above underlined limitations obvious , together with all the other limitations of the claims.
12. Claims 14-18 are allowed.
13. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Claims 14-18 are allowed since certain key features of the claimed invention are not taught or fairly suggested by the prior art. In claim 14, “increasing an interpupillary distance (IPD) between the first optical display and a second optical display, based on using at least one chamfer cut along a first side of the first optical display”. The closest prior art of record, Chen (US 10,928,695), discloses an apparatus (Fig. 7, (118) comprising: an optical display (Fig. 7, (122L), wherein the optical display comprises a source driver (Fig. 7, (124) positioned opposite a nasal region (non-display region (Figs 4 and 7, (400) between the left array (164L) and the right array (146R); and wherein the optical display comprises at least one chamfer cut along a side of the optical display (Fig. 7, upper right inclined slope to the right of the flat upper section) non-adjacent to the source driver (the source driver (Fig. 7, (124) is at the bottom center, while the upper right cut is by the top area).
However, singularly or in combination, fails to anticipate or render the above underlined limitations obvious, together with all the other limitations of the claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICARDO OSORIO whose telephone number is (571)272-7676. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM-5:30 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, LunYi Lao can be reached at 571-272-7676. 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.
/RICARDO OSORIO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2619
Prosecution Insights