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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6, 8 and 14 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3 and 6-10, 15, 17 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,181,748 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claims 1-6, 8 and 14, claims 1, 3 and 6-10, 15, 17 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,181,748 B2 discloses all the claim limitations of claims 1-6, 8 and 14.
Claims 7, 9 and 10 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3 and 6-10, 15, 17 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,181,748 B2 as applied to claims 6 and 8 above respectively, and further in view of Liu CN 113997868A (see document 18969665_2026-08-05_CN_113997868_A_M.pdf, and use Liu US 20240056670 as an English translation for rejection).
Regarding claims 7, 9 and 10, claims 1, 3 and 6-10, 15, 17 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,181,748 B2 does not explicitly discloses all the claim limitations of claims 7, 9 and 10.
Liu discloses a display apparatus, in at least figs.1-4, DI2 is less than or equal to DI1 (para.26, 27, 30 and 45 to have a smooth brightness transition of the display device and preventing the non-display light transmissive area 10a of the in-vehicle display device from being easily observed when displaying), DI3 is less than or equal to DI1 (para.26, 27, 30 and 45 disclose to have a smooth brightness transition of the display device and preventing the non-display light transmissive area 10a of the in-vehicle display device from being easily observed when displaying), a luminance difference between the fifth luminance value and the third luminance value is equal to DI1 (see claim 6 and para.26, 27, 30 and 45 disclose to have a smooth brightness transition of the display device and preventing the non-display light transmissive area 10a of the in-vehicle display device from being easily observed when displaying), a luminance difference between the first luminance value and the fourth luminance value is equal to DI2 (see claim 6 and para.26, 27, 30 and 45 disclose to have a smooth brightness transition of the display device and preventing the non-display light transmissive area 10a of the in-vehicle display device from being easily observed when displaying), and DI1, DI2, and DI3 are equal (para.26, 27, 30 and 45 disclose to have a smooth brightness transition of the display device and preventing the non-display light transmissive area 10a of the in-vehicle display device from being easily observed when displaying) for the purpose of having a smooth brightness transition of the display device and preventing the non-display light transmissive area 10a of the in-vehicle display device from being easily observed when displaying (para.26, 27, 30 and 45).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have all the claim limitations of claims 7, 9 and 10 as taught by Liu in the display apparatus of claims 1, 3 and 6-10, 15, 17 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,181,748 B2 for the purpose of forming the display apparatus with a smooth brightness transition and preventing the non-display light transmissive area/opening region of the display apparatus from being easily observed when displaying.
Claim 11 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3 and 6-10, 15, 17 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,181,748 B2 as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Utsumi US 2005/0140855
Regarding claim 11, claims 1, 3 and 6-10, 15, 17 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,181,748 B2 does not explicitly disclose I1 ranges from 0.4 nits to 1 nits.
Utsumi discloses a display apparatus, in at least fig.3, I1 ranges from 0.4 nits to 1 nits (para.81 discloses 0.9 nits) for the purpose of having a black representation/state (para.81).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have I1 ranges from 0.4 nits to 1 nits as taught by Utsumi in the display apparatus of claims 1, 3 and 6-10, 15, 17 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,181,748 B2 for the purpose of forming the display apparatus with a smooth brightness transition and preventing the non-display light transmissive area/opening region of the display apparatus from being easily observed when displaying (para.26, 27, 30 and 45).
Moreover, claims 1, 3 and 6-10, 15, 17 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,181,748 B2 in view of Utsumi does not explicitly disclose DI1 ranges from 0.001 nits to 0.1 nits. However, claims 1, 3 and 6-10, 15, 17 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,181,748 B2 discloses DI1 is small and smaller than I1 (see claim 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify Liu’s display apparatus to have DI1 ranges from 0.001 nits to 0.1 nits. One would have chosen the value of DI1 according to a result effective variable balancing the need to form a display apparatus with a DI1 while not making the ratio overly large to make the display apparatus unreliable. One would have been motivated to form the display apparatus to have the ratio within the claimed range for the purpose of forming the display apparatus with a smooth brightness transition and preventing the non-display light transmissive area/opening region of the display apparatus from being easily observed when displaying in order to have the display apparatus with high reliability. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to have DI1 ranges from 0.001 nits to 0.1 nits through routine experimentation and optimization, in re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The Applicant has not disclosed that the range is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another range. Indeed, it has been held that mere range limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have DI1 ranges from 0.001 nits to 0.1 nits in the display apparatus of claims 1, 3 and 6-10, 15, 17 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,181,748 B2 in view of Utsumi for the purpose of forming the display apparatus with a smooth brightness transition and preventing the non-display light transmissive area/opening region of the display apparatus from being easily observed when displaying.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 8 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 10, “an aperture ratio of the first sub-region” should be “the aperture ratio of the first sub-region”;
Claim 8 should be depended on claim 6 instead of claim 1 because I1 is cited in claim 6 only.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 2, 4 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu CN 113997868A (see document 18969665_2026-08-05_CN_113997868_A_M.pdf, and use Liu US 20240056670 as an English translation for rejection).
Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses a display apparatus, in at least figs.1-4, comprising: a display panel having a first display region (10b1), a second display region (10b2), and an opening region (10a),
wherein the first display region is adjacent to the second display region, and the second display region is adjacent to the opening region (see figs.2-4);
wherein the second display region comprises at least a first sub-region (the furthest surrounding sub-region of 10b2 to the opening region 10a, see figs.2-4) and a second sub-region (the other surrounding sub-region of 10b2 besides the first sub-region, see figs.2-4), the second sub-region surrounds the opening region (see figs.2-4), and the first sub-region is disposed on a side of the second sub-region away from the opening region (see figs.2-4); and
wherein an aperture ratio of the first display region is greater than an aperture ratio of the first sub-region (see fig.4 and para.49), the aperture ratio of the first sub-region is greater than an aperture ratio of the second sub-region (see fig.4 and para.49).
Regarding claim 2, Liu discloses the display panel comprises a color filter layer (1022 with 1023) corresponding to the first display region, the first sub-region, and the second sub-region (see fig.2);
the color filter layer comprises a black matrix (1023) and a plurality of color resists (1022) arranged in the black matrix, and the black matrix comprises a plurality of black blocks (1025) arranged at intervals; and
in a direction from the first display region to the opening region, a first width of one of the black blocks corresponding to the first display region is less than a second width of one of the black blocks corresponding to the first sub-region (see fig.4), and the second width is less than a third width of one of the black blocks corresponding to the second sub-region (see fig.4).
Regarding claim 4, Liu discloses a first area (1026) of one of the color resists corresponding to the first display region is greater than a second area (1027) of one of the color resists corresponding to the first sub-region (see fig.4), and the second area is greater than a third area (the area near to 10a) of one of the color resists corresponding to the second sub-region (see fig.4); and a ratio of the first area, the second area, and the third area is 1:(0.5˜1):(0˜0.5)(see fig.4).
Regarding claim 12, Liu discloses further comprising a sensor (30) disposed on a backlight (20) side of the display panel to correspond to the opening region (see fig.1).
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) 3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu CN 113997868A (see document 18969665_2026-08-05_CN_113997868_A_M.pdf, and use Liu US 20240056670 as an English translation for rejection) as applied to claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 3, Liu discloses a ratio of the first width, the second width, and the third width is about 1:1.1:1.5 (see fig.4).
Liu does not explicitly disclose the ratio is 1:(1~2.5):(2.5~5). However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify Liu’s display apparatus to have the ratio is 1:(1~2.5):(2.5~5). One would have chosen the value of the ratio according to a result effective variable balancing the need to form a display apparatus with a ratio while not making the ratio overly large or overly small to make the display apparatus unreliable. One would have been motivated to form the display apparatus to have the ratio within the claimed range for the purpose of forming the display apparatus with a smooth brightness transition and preventing the non-display light transmissive area/opening region of the display apparatus from being easily observed when displaying (para.26, 27, 30 and 45) in order to have the display apparatus with high reliability. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to have the ratio is 1:(1~2.5):(2.5~5) through routine experimentation and optimization, in re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The Applicant has not disclosed that the range is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another range. Indeed, it has been held that mere range limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the ratio is 1:(1~2.5):(2.5~5) in the display apparatus of Liu for the purpose of forming the display apparatus with a smooth brightness transition and preventing the non-display light transmissive area/opening region of the display apparatus from being easily observed when displaying (para.26, 27, 30 and 45).
Regarding claim 5, Liu discloses the plurality of color resists comprises a green color resist (G1), a red color resist (R1), and a blue color resist (B1);
in one of the color resists corresponding to the first display region, an area (1026) of the green color resist, an area (1026) of the red color resist, and an area (1026) of the blue color resist have a first area ratio ((1:1:1), see fig.4);
in one of the color resists corresponding to the first sub-region, the area of the green color resist, the area of the red color resist, and the area of the blue color resist have a second area ratio (see fig.4 and para.26, 27, 30 and 45 disclose there is five to fifteen pixels in the second display region, have a smooth brightness transition of the display device and preventing the non-display light transmissive area 10a of the in-vehicle display device from being easily observed when displaying);
in one of the color resists corresponding to the second sub-region, the area of the green color resist, the area of the red color resist, and the area of the blue color resist have a third area ratio (see fig.4 and para.26, 27, 30 and 45 disclose there is five to fifteen pixels in the second display region, have a smooth brightness transition of the display device and preventing the non-display light transmissive area 10a of the in-vehicle display device from being easily observed when displaying); and
a ratio of the first area ratio, the second area ratio, and the third area ratio is (1:1:1):(X1:X2:X3):((Y1:Y2:Y3) (see fig.4 and para.30, all Xs and Ys are smaller than 1).
Liu does not explicitly disclose the ratio of the first area ratio, the second area ratio, and the third area ratio is (1:1:1):((0.9˜0.8):1:1):((0.8˜0.7):(0.9˜0.8):1). However, Liu discloses the first area ratio is great than the second area ratio, the second area ratio is great than the third area ratio for having a smooth brightness transition of the display device. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify Liu’s display apparatus to have the ratio of the first area ratio, the second area ratio, and the third area ratio is (1:1:1):((0.9˜0.8):1:1):((0.8˜0.7):(0.9˜0.8):1). One would have chosen the value of the ratio according to a result effective variable balancing the need to form a display apparatus with a ratio while not making the ratio overly large to make the display apparatus unreliable. One would have been motivated to form the display apparatus to have the ratio within the claimed range for the purpose of forming the display apparatus with a smooth brightness transition and preventing the non-display light transmissive area/opening region of the display apparatus from being easily observed when displaying (para.26, 27, 30 and 45) in order to have the display apparatus with high reliability. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to have the ratio of the first area ratio, the second area ratio, and the third area ratio is (1:1:1):((0.9˜0.8):1:1):((0.8˜0.7):(0.9˜0.8):1) through routine experimentation and optimization, in re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The Applicant has not disclosed that the range is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another range. Indeed, it has been held that mere range limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the ratio of the first area ratio, the second area ratio, and the third area ratio is (1:1:1):((0.9˜0.8):1:1):((0.8˜0.7):(0.9˜0.8):1) in the display apparatus of Liu for the purpose of forming the display apparatus with a smooth brightness transition and preventing the non-display light transmissive area/opening region of the display apparatus from being easily observed when displaying (para.26, 27, 30 and 45).
Claim(s) 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu CN 113997868A (see document 18969665_2026-08-05_CN_113997868_A_M.pdf, and use Liu US 20240056670 as an English translation for rejection) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 6, Liu discloses the aperture ratio of the first display region and an aperture ratio of the second display region are configured such that when the display apparatus is in a black state, the first display region, the second display region and the opening region respectively have a first luminance value I1, a second luminance value and a third luminance value that decrease sequentially (see fig.4 and para.26, 27, 30 and 45), a ratio of DI1 to I1 (see fig.4 and para.26, 27, 30 and 45), and a ratio of DI2 to I1 (see fig.4 and para.26, 27, 30 and 45), where DI1 represents a first luminance difference between the second luminance value and the third luminance value, and DI2 represents a second luminance difference between the first luminance value and the second luminance value (para.26, 27, 30 and 45 disclose display brightness is higher at the main display area 10b1, decreases through the transition display area 10b2, and is lower at the non-display light transmissive area 10a, such that a smooth transition of brightness is realized between the main display area 10b1 and the non-display light transmissive area 10a, preventing the non-display light transmissive area 10a of the in-vehicle display device from being easily observed when displaying. Also, when the in-vehicle display device displays, backlight transmittance of the main display area 10b1 is greater than backlight transmittance of the transition display area 10b2, and brightness of the main display area 10b1 is greater than brightness of the transition display area 10b2. Meanwhile, the brightness of the transition display area 10b2 decreases in the direction from the main display area 10b1 to the non-display light transmissive area 10a. Because there is no backlight at the non-display light transmissive area 10a, the brightness of the transition display area 10b2 being greater than brightness of the non-display light transmissive area 10a is advantageous to a smooth brightness transition of the display device when displaying).
Liu does not explicitly disclose the ratio of each of DI1 to I1 and DI2 to I1 ranges from 0.001 to 0.1. However, Liu discloses the ratio of each of DI1 to I1 and DI2 to I1 is small (see fig.4 and para.26, 27, 30 and 45 for having a smooth brightness transition). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify Liu’s display apparatus to have the ratio of each of DI1 to I1 and DI2 to I1 ranges from 0.001 to 0.1. One would have chosen the value of the ratio according to a result effective variable balancing the need to form a display apparatus with a ratio while not making the ratio overly large to make the display apparatus unreliable. One would have been motivated to form the display apparatus to have the ratio within the claimed range for the purpose of forming the display apparatus with a smooth brightness transition and preventing the non-display light transmissive area/opening region of the display apparatus from being easily observed when displaying (para.26, 27, 30 and 45) in order to have the display apparatus with high reliability. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to have the ratio of each of DI1 to I1 and DI2 to I1 ranges from 0.001 to 0.1 through routine experimentation and optimization, in re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The Applicant has not disclosed that the range is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another range. Indeed, it has been held that mere range limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the ratio of each of DI1 to I1 and DI2 to I1 ranges from 0.001 to 0.1 in the display apparatus of Liu for the purpose of forming the display apparatus with a smooth brightness transition and preventing the non-display light transmissive area/opening region of the display apparatus from being easily observed when displaying (para.26, 27, 30 and 45).
Regarding claim 7, Liu discloses DI2 is less than or equal to DI1 (para.26, 27, 30 and 45 to have a smooth brightness transition of the display device and preventing the non-display light transmissive area 10a of the in-vehicle display device from being easily observed when displaying).
Regarding claim 8, Liu discloses the aperture ratio of the first sub-region and the aperture ratio of the second sub-region are configured such that when the display apparatus is in the black state, the first sub-region and the second sub-region respectively have a fourth luminance value and a fifth luminance value, and a ratio of DI3 to I1 (see fig.4 and para.26, 27, 30 and 45), where DI3 represents a third luminance difference between the fourth luminance value and the fifth luminance value.
Liu does not explicitly disclose the ratio of DI3 to I1 ranges from 0.001 to 0.1. However, Liu discloses the ratio of DI3 to I1 is small (see fig.4 and para.26, 27, 30 and 45 for having a smooth brightness transition). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify Liu’s display apparatus to have the ratio of DI3 to I1 ranges from 0.001 to 0.1. One would have chosen the value of the ratio according to a result effective variable balancing the need to form a display apparatus with a ratio while not making the ratio overly large to make the display apparatus unreliable. One would have been motivated to form the display apparatus to have the ratio within the claimed range for the purpose of forming the display apparatus with a smooth brightness transition and preventing the non-display light transmissive area/opening region of the display apparatus from being easily observed when displaying (para.26, 27, 30 and 45) in order to have the display apparatus with high reliability. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to have the ratio of DI3 to I1 ranges from 0.001 to 0.1 through routine experimentation and optimization, in re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The Applicant has not disclosed that the range is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another range. Indeed, it has been held that mere range limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the ratio of DI3 to I1 ranges from 0.001 to 0.1 in the display apparatus of Liu for the purpose of forming the display apparatus with a smooth brightness transition and preventing the non-display light transmissive area/opening region of the display apparatus from being easily observed when displaying (para.26, 27, 30 and 45).
Regarding claim 9, Liu discloses DI3 is less than or equal to DI1 (para.26, 27, 30 and 45 disclose to have a smooth brightness transition of the display device and preventing the non-display light transmissive area 10a of the in-vehicle display device from being easily observed when displaying).
Regarding claim 10, Liu discloses a luminance difference between the fifth luminance value and the third luminance value is equal to DI1 (see claim 6 and para.26, 27, 30 and 45 disclose to have a smooth brightness transition of the display device and preventing the non-display light transmissive area 10a of the in-vehicle display device from being easily observed when displaying),
a luminance difference between the first luminance value and the fourth luminance value is equal to DI2 (see claim 6 and para.26, 27, 30 and 45 disclose to have a smooth brightness transition of the display device and preventing the non-display light transmissive area 10a of the in-vehicle display device from being easily observed when displaying), and
DI1, DI2, and DI3 are equal (para.26, 27, 30 and 45 disclose to have a smooth brightness transition of the display device and preventing the non-display light transmissive area 10a of the in-vehicle display device from being easily observed when displaying).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu CN 113997868A (see document 18969665_2026-08-05_CN_113997868_A_M.pdf, and use Liu US 20240056670 as an English translation for rejection) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Utsumi US 2005/0140855.
Regarding claim 11, Liu does not explicitly disclose I1 ranges from 0.4 nits to 1 nits.
Utsumi discloses a display apparatus, in at least fig.3, I1 ranges from 0.4 nits to 1 nits (para.81 discloses 0.9 nits) for the purpose of having a black representation/state (para.81).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have I1 ranges from 0.4 nits to 1 nits as taught by Utsumi in the display apparatus of Liu for the purpose of forming the display apparatus with a smooth brightness transition and preventing the non-display light transmissive area/opening region of the display apparatus from being easily observed when displaying (para.26, 27, 30 and 45).
Moreover, Liu in view of Utsumi does not explicitly disclose DI1 ranges from 0.001 nits to 0.1 nits. However, Liu discloses DI1 is small and smaller than I1 (see fig.4 and para.26, 27, 30 and 45 for having a smooth brightness transition). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify Liu’s display apparatus to have DI1 ranges from 0.001 nits to 0.1 nits. One would have chosen the value of DI1 according to a result effective variable balancing the need to form a display apparatus with a DI1 while not making the ratio overly large to make the display apparatus unreliable. One would have been motivated to form the display apparatus to have the ratio within the claimed range for the purpose of forming the display apparatus with a smooth brightness transition and preventing the non-display light transmissive area/opening region of the display apparatus from being easily observed when displaying (para.26, 27, 30 and 45) in order to have the display apparatus with high reliability. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to have DI1 ranges from 0.001 nits to 0.1 nits through routine experimentation and optimization, in re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The Applicant has not disclosed that the range is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another range. Indeed, it has been held that mere range limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have DI1 ranges from 0.001 nits to 0.1 nits in the display apparatus of Liu in view of Utsumi for the purpose of forming the display apparatus with a smooth brightness transition and preventing the non-display light transmissive area/opening region of the display apparatus from being easily observed when displaying (para.26, 27, 30 and 45).
Contact Information
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zhu US 20200380917 (figs.1-8 discloses at least claim 1) can be a primary reference. Li CN 109581749A (figs.1-6, see document of 18969665_2026-08-05_CN_109581749_A_M.pdf) can be a primary reference as well.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIA X PAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7574. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 11:00AM - 5:00PM.
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, Michael H Caley can be reached at (571)272-2286. 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.
/JIA X PAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights