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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 8-26-26 has been entered and fully considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “a third angle between the column direction and the inclined direction of the first display device and a fourth angle between the column direction and the inclined direction of the second display device are different.” However, the applicant’s specification only teaches that a third angle between the column direction (D2 in Fig. 8, but more specifically D2(5a) in Fig. 9) and the inclined direction (D3 in Fig. 8, but more specifically D3(5a) in Fig. 9) of the first display device (eg. the third angle is between D2(5a) and D3(5b) and labelled θ3, as seen in Fig. 9) and a fourth angle between the column direction (also corresponding to D2 in Fig. 8, but more specifically D2(5b) in Fig. 9) and the inclined direction (also corresponding to D3 in Fig. 8, but more specifically D3(5b) in Fig. 9) of the second display device (eg. the third angle is between D2(5a) and D3(5b) and also labelled θ3, as seen in Fig. 9) are the same (“a third angle θ3 between the column direction D2 and the inclined direction D3 is 36.8° in each of the first display device 5a and the second display device 5b” discussed in [0082]). While the specification teaches that the “directions” of D2 and D3 for each display may be different (eg. in [0078]), or wherein other angles are different (eg. “the first angle θ1 and the second angle θ2 may be different angles” as discussed in [0088]), the applicant’s specification fails to provide support for a third angle and fourth angle (eg. θ3) of a first and second display device being different, as recited in the claim.
Claim 9 is dependent upon claim 8, and so is rejected for the same reasons as discussed above.
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.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2019/0266974) in view of Langendijk (US 2006/0098033), Tominaga (US 2019/0287473), Murata et al. (US 2024/0160052).
Regarding claim 1, Chen (Fig. 1-5) discloses a display system comprising:
a mounting unit (100) configured to be worn on a head of a user (“worn on or about a user's head” discussed in [0030]) so as to cover both eyes of the user (“surround viewing region 106, which includes the user's field of vision, allowing the user to look through lenses 104 of head-mounted-display device 102 without interference from outside light” discussed in [0035]);
two display devices (140A and 140B) each having a display area (122A and 122B) in which a plurality of sub-pixels (152A, 152B, and 152C) are arrayed in a matrix (shown in Fig. 4B) having a row-column configuration (eg. rows 154 and columns 156); and
a drive circuit (124) configured to output sub-pixel signals for displaying an image in the display area (“display driver circuit 124 for driving subpixels” discussed in [0040]), wherein the sub-pixels include a plurality of first sub-pixels (152A), a plurality of second sub-pixels (152B), and a plurality of third sub-pixels (152C),
wherein the color of the first sub-pixels, the color of the second sub-pixels, and the color of the third sub-pixels are different from one another (152A is red, 152B is green, and 152C is blue, as discussed in [0045]),
wherein the two display devices each comprise a plurality of signal lines (158A and 158B, respectively) that extend along the column direction (“data lines 158A and data lines 158B may each extend parallel to corresponding pixel columns” discussed in [0050]) and transmit the sub-pixel signals to the sub-pixels (“data lines for driving subpixels of left- and right-eye display regions in accordance with scanning and data signals from display driver circuit 124” discussed in [0043]),
wherein the display area of a first display device of the two display devices is arranged to face one of the eyes of the user (122A is a “left-eye display region” as discussed in [0043]), and the display area of a second display device of the two display devices is arranged to face the other of the eyes of the user (similarly, 122B is a “right-eye display region,” see also “visible to a user's left and right eyes” as discussed in [0043]),
wherein the two display devices are disposed in the mounting unit such that the column direction of the first display device (the direction θ1 seen in Fig. 5A, which is the same as the direction of the data lines, as discussed above, and “data lines 158A may each extend at an angle θ1” discussed in [0050]) and the column direction of the second display device (the direction θ2 seen in Fig. 5A, which is the same as the direction of the data lines, as discussed above, and “data lines 158B may each extend at an angle θ2” discussed in [0050]) are different directions (different directions to the left and right, respectively, as seen in Fig. 5A).
However, while Chen discloses each the pixels 150 have three sub-pixels 152A, 152B, and 152C, Chen fails to teach or suggest details of the order of the sub-pixels throughout the rest of the display area, and so fails to teach or suggest details of any sub-pixel pattern, and also fails to teach or suggest any details of the driving method, and so fails to teach or suggest “column inversion driving.”
Langendijk (Fig. 6) discloses a display system comprising:
a display device having a display area (seen in Fig. 6) in which a plurality of sub-pixels (R, G, and B) are arrayed in a matrix having a row-column configuration (eg. the horizontal row direction and vertical column direction); and
wherein the color of the first sub-pixels, the color of the second sub-pixels, and the color of the third sub-pixels are different from one another (R is red, G is green, and B is blue, as discussed in [0067]),
wherein, in the display area, the first sub-pixels, the second sub-pixels, and the third sub-pixels are arrayed such that the first sub-pixel, the second sub-pixel, and the third sub-pixel are repeatedly disposed along a row direction in order as listed (as seen in Fig. 6, from left to right in each row, the pixels are repeatedly ordered R, G, and B) and that the first sub-pixel, the second sub-pixel, and the third sub-pixel are repeatedly disposed along a column direction in the order as listed (as seen in Fig. 6, from bottom to top in each column, the pixels are repeatedly ordered R, G, and B),
wherein, in the display area, the first sub-pixels are continuously arrayed along an inclined direction inclined with respect to the row direction and the column direction (as seen in Fig. 6, the red sub-pixels R are arranged in diagonal lines, from top left to bottom right, with respect to the horizontal and vertical directions of the rows and columns), the second sub-pixels are continuously arrayed along the inclined direction (similarly, green sub-pixels G are in arranged in diagonal lines), and the third sub-pixels are continuously arrayed along the inclined direction (similarly, blue sub-pixels B are arranged in diagonal lines).
Therefore, the combination of Chen and Langendijk would provide a display system wherein the two display devices are disposed in the mounting unit such that the column direction of the first display device (the direction θ1 seen in Fig. 5A of Chen, which corresponds to the vertical direction in Fig. 6 of Langendijk, parallel to the columns), the inclined direction of the first display device (the inclined direction of the pixels of Langendijk is diagonally from top left to bottom right with respect to the direction of the columns, as seen in Fig. 6, or in other words, 45 degrees off counterclockwise from the column direction, and so corresponds to a roughly horizontal direction X in Fig. 5A of Chen), the column direction of the second display device (the direction θ2 seen in Fig. 5A of Chen, which corresponds to the vertical direction in Fig. 6 of Langendijk, parallel to the columns), and the inclined direction of the second display device (the inclined direction of the pixels of Langendijk is diagonally from top left to bottom right with respect to the direction of the columns, as seen in Fig. 6, or in other words, 45 degrees off counterclockwise from the column direction, and so corresponds to a roughly vertical direction Y in Fig. 5A of Chen) are different directions (the θ1, X, θ2, and Y directions are each different and roughly upwards to the left, horizontal, upwards to the right, and vertical, respectively, as seen in Fig. 5A of Chen).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen so the sub-pixels are arranged along the rows and columns to form inclined directions as taught by Langendijk because this provides a “simple array design, and a better color homogeneity” (see [0069]).
However, Chen and Langendijk still fail to teach or suggest a column inversion driving method.
Tominaga (Fig. 19) discloses a display system comprising:
a display device (1) having a display area (4) in which a plurality of sub-pixels (13) are arrayed in a matrix having a row-column configuration (eg. the horizontal row direction and vertical column direction seen in Fig. 1); and
a drive circuit (6) configured to output sub-pixel signals for displaying an image in the display area (“drive circuit 6 respectively applies voltages depending on a video signal to the data lines 12. With this, the voltages depending on the video signal are respectively written to the pixel electrodes 16 included in the pixel circuits 13” discussed in [0037]),
wherein the sub-pixels include a plurality of first sub-pixels, a plurality of second sub-pixels, and a plurality of third sub-pixels (an “R subpixel,” a “G subpixel,” and a “B subpixel,” respectively),
wherein the color of the first sub-pixels, the color of the second sub-pixels, and the color of the third sub-pixels are different from one another (“a pixel circuit for displaying red is referred to as a R pixel circuit, a pixel for displaying green is referred to as a G pixel circuit, and a pixel circuit for displaying blue is referred to as a B pixel circuit” as discussed in [0033]),
wherein the drive circuit outputs the sub-pixel signals by a column inversion driving method (“column inversion drive” discussed in [0004]) in which polarities of the sub-pixel signals are different between two signal lines adjacent to each other in the row direction (eg. as seen in Fig. 19, the top left R sub-pixel is positive, while the G sub-pixel that is adjacent to it in the row direction, ie. on the right, is negative, see also “the polarity of the voltage written to the pixel circuit is inverted every column of the pixel circuits” discussed in [0004]) and the polarities of the sub-pixel signals are periodically inverted (“the polarity of the voltage written to the pixel circuit is inverted in a next frame” discussed in [0004]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen and Langendijk to use a column inversion driving method as taught by Tominaga because each are directed towards LCD displays (see [0030] of Chen, [0018] of Langendijk, and [0002] of Tominaga), and this provides a “thin, light-weight, low power consumption display device” (see [0002]).
However, Chen, Langendijk, and Tominaga fail to provide specific details of the pitch of the sub-pixels.
Murata (Fig. 9) discloses a display system comprising:
a display device having a display area (eg. a “liquid crystal display” as discussed in [0152]) in which a plurality of sub-pixels (21P) are arrayed in a matrix (as seen in Fig. 9, also “plurality of pixels arranged in the in-plane direction in a matrix pattern” discussed in [0127]); and
wherein the sub-pixels include a plurality of first sub-pixels (corresponding to 212CR), a plurality of second sub-pixels (corresponding to 212CG), and a plurality of third sub-pixels (corresponding to 212CB),
wherein the color of the first sub-pixels, the color of the second sub-pixels, and the color of the third sub-pixels are different from one another (“red color filters 212CR, green color filters 212CG, and blue color filters 212CB” discussed in [0159]),
wherein a ratio of a second pitch, which is a pitch of two sub-pixels that are adjacent to each other in the column direction in plan view (corresponding to the vertical pitch of the sub-pixels, eg. the “length of each pixel 21P in the lengthwise direction (top-bottom direction)” which is “170 μm” as discussed in [0157]), to a first pitch, which is a pitch of two sub-pixels having different colors (eg. as seen in Fig. 9, two adjacent sub-pixels 212CB and 212CG have different colors, blue and green, respectively) of the sub-pixels that are adjacent to each other in the row direction in plan view (corresponding to the horizontal pitch of the sub-pixels, eg. the “length of each pixel 21P in the widthwise direction (left-right direction)” which is “70 μm” as discussed in [0157]), is equal to or higher than 4/3 and smaller than 3 (170 μm/70 μm = 2.43 which is greater than 4/3 and less than 3).
Additionally, although Murata fails to specifically describe the pattern of sub-pixel colors in the column direction, as discussed above, Langendijk teaches two sub-pixels having different colors of the sub-pixels that are adjacent to each other in the column direction in plan view (eg. as seen in the top left of the plan view shown in Fig. 6, a red sub-pixel is vertically adjacent to a blue sub-pixel) and two sub-pixels having different colors of the sub-pixels that are adjacent to each other in the row direction in plan view (eg. as seen in the top left of the plan view shown in Fig. 6, a red sub-pixel is horizontally adjacent to a green sub-pixel). Therefore, the combination of Chen, Langendijk, and Tominaga with Murata would also teach a second pitch (eg. 170 μm, as taught by Murata), which is a pitch of two sub-pixels having different colors of the sub-pixels that are adjacent to each other in the column direction in plan view (eg. the red and blue sub-pixels in the top left of Fig. 6 in Langendijk).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen, Langendijk, and Tominaga to use the specific pixel pitches as taught by Murata because each are directed towards LCD displays (see [0152] of Murata), and this provides a display that is “thin profile, light weight, and low power consumption” (see [0003]).
Regarding claim 4, Chen, Langendijk, Tominaga, and Murata disclose a display system as discussed above, and Chen further discloses wherein the first sub-pixel is a red sub-pixel (“subpixel 152A may emit light having a first wavelength and/or range of wavelengths (e.g., red light)” discussed in [0045]), wherein the second sub-pixel is a green sub-pixel (“subpixel 152B may emit light having a second wavelength and/or range of wavelengths (e.g., green light)” discussed in [0045]), and wherein the third sub-pixel is a blue sub-pixel (“subpixel 152C may emit light having a third wavelength and/or range of wavelengths (e.g., blue light)” discussed in [0045]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, Langendijk, Tominaga, Murata as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Selan (US 2020/0228788).
Regarding claim 7, Chen, Langendijk, Tominaga, and Murata disclose a display system as discussed above, however fail to teach or suggest specific angles between the array directions.
Selan (Fig. 1 and 3) discloses a display system comprising:
a mounting unit (100) configured to be worn on a head of a user (102) so as to cover both eyes of the user (as seen in Fig. 1);
two display devices (104) each having a display area in which a plurality of sub-pixels (310) are arrayed in a matrix having a row-column configuration (as seen in the top of Fig. 3, see also “pixels are arranged in vertical columns and horizontal rows on the display panel” discussed in [0036]); and
wherein the sub-pixels include a plurality of first sub-pixels (eg. the red subpixels “R”), a plurality of second sub-pixels (eg. the green subpixels “G”), and a plurality of third sub-pixels (eg. the blue subpixels “B”),
wherein the color of the first sub-pixels, the color of the second sub-pixels, and the color of the third sub-pixels are different from one another (red, green, and blue, respectively, as discussed above),
wherein the display area of a first display device (104(1) of the two display devices is arranged to face one of the eyes of the user (as seen in Fig. 3, 104(1) faces the user’s left eye, see also “first lens-and-display assembly may correspond to the user's 102 left eye” discussed in [0020]), and the display area of a second display device (104(2)) of the two display devices is arranged to face the other of the eyes of the user (as seen in Fig. 3, 104(2) faces the user’s left eye, see also “the second lens-and-display assembly may correspond to the user's 102 right eye” discussed in [0020]),
wherein a first angle is an angle between an orthogonal direction orthogonal to an array direction in which the two display devices are arranged (ie. horizontally in Fig. 3) and the column direction of the first display device in plan view (as seen in Fig. 3, 104(1) is rotated relative to the horizontal direction, with the angle labelled “θ” in the figure),
wherein a second angle is an angle between the orthogonal direction and the column direction of the second display device in plan view (as seen in Fig. 3, 104(2) is rotated relative to the horizontal direction, with the angle also labelled “θ” in the figure”), and
wherein the first angle and the second angle are different (“the first display panel 104(1) is rotated 45 degrees” while “the second display panel 104(2) is rotated 44 degrees” as discussed in [0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen, Langendijk, Tominaga, and Murata so a first and second angles between the array direction and column direction of the first and second display devices are different as taught by Selan because having different angles prevents “additional problems that degrade the viewing experience” while still providing “mitigation of panel artifacts” (see [0035]), while reducing the tolerances required by the display angles.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 9 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
PNG
media_image1.png
450
271
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Chen, Langendijk, Tominaga, and Murata disclose a display system as discussed above, and the combination further discloses a third angle between the column direction (eg. vertically) and the inclined direction of the first display device (eg. the diagonal angle corresponding to the red pixels, as seen in Fig. 6 of Langendijk, shown modified with an additional label above) and a fourth angle between the column direction and the inclined direction of the second display device (eg. both the first and second display devices 140A and 140B of Chen have a similar structure, and so the second display device will also have an angle between the column direction and the inclined direction). However, Chen, Langendijk, Tominaga, and Murata fail to teach or suggest the third and fourth angles are “different.”
Therefore, none of the currently cited references of record teaches or suggests “a third angle between the column direction and the inclined direction of the first display device and a fourth angle between the column direction and the inclined direction of the second display device are different” when combined with each of the other currently cited claim limitations.
Claim 9 is dependent upon claim 8, and so would be allowable for the same reasons as discussed above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8-26-26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Regarding claim 1, the applicant argues that each of Chen, Langendijk, Tominaga, and Murata fail to teach or suggest the newly added claim limitation “wherein a ratio of a second pitch, which is a pitch of two sub-pixels having different colors of the sub-pixels that are adjacent to each other in the column direction in plan view, to a first pitch, which is a pitch of two sub-pixels having different colors of the sub-pixels that are adjacent to each other in the row direction in plan view, is equal to or higher than 4/3 and smaller than 3.”
However, as discussed above, Murata properly teaches a ratio of a second pitch to a first pitch that is higher than 4/3 and smaller than 3, and when combined with Chen, Langendijk, and Tominaga, also teaches two sub-pixels having different colors of the sub-pixels that are adjacent to each other in each of the column and row directions (eg. see Langendijk Fig. 6).
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 JONATHAN M BLANCHA whose telephone number is (571)270-5890. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9-5.
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, Chanh Nguyen can be reached at 5712727772. 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.
/JONATHAN M BLANCHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2623
Prosecution Insights