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 1-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No.12,210,233. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application is direct to an electronic device comprising a first protrusion instead of a plurality of protrusions as is claimed in US Patent 12,210,233.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 would be allowable if the double patenting rejection were overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding independent claim 1, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest an electronic device, comprising: a display panel and a viewing angle control unit comprising a first substrate and a second substrate; a first protrusion disposed between the first and second substrate, a first shielding unit disposed between the first substrate and the second substrate and overlapped with the first protrusion, wherein the first shielding unit forms a first projection on the first substrate, and the first protrusion forms a second projection non the first substrate, wherein the first projection has a first maximum length A and first maximum width B in a first direction, the second projection has a second maximum length a and a second maximum width b, and 2≥A/a≥1 and 2≥B/b≥1, in combination with the remaining features recited in the claim.
The prior art of Yue (US 2021/0041730 A1) discloses an electronic device comprising a display panel and a viewing angle control unit which comprises a first protrusion disposed between first and second substrate (Yue, Figure 1, display panel 1, viewing angle control unit 2, protrusions 21, shielding units 52). However, Yue fails to disclose a relationship between the lengths and widths of the protrusions and shielding units. The prior art of Lee (US 2022/0260886 A1) discloses light shielding units within protrusions in a viewing angle control unit disposed over a display panel (Lee, Figure 16). However, Lee also fails to explicitly disclose a relationship between projected widths and lengths of the shielding unit and the protrusion. The prior art of Daishi (US 2020/0387028 A1) discloses protrusions for viewing angle control (Daishi, Figure 8). However, Daishi also fails to disclose that a first projection of the one plurality of shielding units has a first maximum length A and first maximum width B in a first direction, a second projection of the one of the plurality of protrusions has a second maximum length a and a second maximum width b, and 2≥A/a≥1 and 2≥B/b≥1.
Therefore, Claim 1 would be allowable if the double patenting rejection were overcome. Claims 2-9 would be allowable by virtue of their dependence on the independent claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIAM QURESHI whose telephone number is (571)272-4434. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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 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.
/MARIAM QURESHI/Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights