DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 Objections
Claims 1 – 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
At Line 24 of Claim 1, Line 9 of Claim 2, Line 2 of Claim 3, and Line 12 of Claim 4: the recitations “the transmission region” require a change to - - the light-transmitting region - - to ensure continuity in terminology from Line 15 of Claim 1 reciting “a light-transmitting region”. Note the Claim 5 falls objected to due to at least dependency upon Claim 4.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 – 5 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4 and 6 (See rejections below for the specific pairing of instant application claims and copending application claims) of copending Application No. 19/097,282 in view of Tomisawa (cited in the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejections of record below).
Regarding Claim 1 of the instant application, Claim 1 of 19/097,282 (hereinafter ‘282’) discloses “A display device comprising” (Claim 1 of ‘282’, Line 1 of Claim), “a liquid crystal display panel provided with a plurality of pixels” (Claim 1 of ‘282’, Lines 2 – 3 of Claim), “and a light source provided with a plurality of light emission points and configured to emit light to the pixels of the liquid crystal display panel” (Claim 1 of ‘282’, Lines 4 – 6 of Claim), “wherein a ratio of a pitch between the pixels arranged in a first direction to a pitch between the light emission points arranged in the first direction is 1:4n or 1:6n, n is a natural number” (Claim 1 of ‘282’, Lines 6 – 10). However, Claim 1 of ‘282’ fails to explicitly disclose “each pixel includes a plurality of sub pixels arranged in the first direction, among the pixels, a first pixel and one or more of the sub pixels included in a second pixel different from the first pixel are controlled to form a light-transmitting region, the first pixel is positioned on a ray line of light between a viewpoint of a user viewing an image display surface of the liquid crystal display panel and one of the light emission points and controlled to transmit light, and the one or more of the sub pixels included in the second pixel are arranged adjacent to the first pixel in the first direction and controlled to transmit light, and a width of the transmission region in the first direction is twice as large as a width of each pixel in the first direction”.
In a similar field of endeavor, Tomisawa teaches “each pixel includes a plurality of sub pixels arranged in the first direction” (Page 25, Line 32 and Figure 16 (Notice the each pixel PixU includes an R, G, and B sub-pixel along a first X direction that aligns with the pitch direction shown for the displays of Figures 3 and 4 as base displays.)), “among the pixels, a first pixel and one or more of the sub pixels included in a second pixel different from the first pixel are controlled to form a light-transmitting region, the first pixel is positioned on a ray line of light between a viewpoint of a user viewing an image display surface of the liquid crystal display panel and one of the light emission points and controlled to transmit light” (Figures 16 and 25 (Notice that a first pixel at xp3/yp3 and one or more than one subpixels included in a second, different pixel at xp2/yp3 are controlled to form a light transmitting region where the first pixel xp3/yp3 is position on a ray line between a viewpoint and light emission point LP to transmit light.)), “and the one or more of the sub pixels included in the second pixel are arranged adjacent to the first pixel in the first direction and controlled to transmit light” (Figure 25 (Notice the plural subpixels (i.e. rectangular regions) of second pixels xp2/yp3 are adjacent to the first pixel xp3/yp3 in the first, x-direction and controlled for light emission.)), “and a width of the transmission region in the first direction is twice as large as a width of each pixel in the first direction” (Figure 25 (Notice that the width of the transmission region including at least pixel xp3/yp3 and xp2/yp3 in the first, x-direction is twice as large as the individuals withs of pixels xp3/yp3 and xp2/yp3 in the first, x-direction.)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “each pixel includes a plurality of sub pixels arranged in the first direction, among the pixels, a first pixel and one or more of the sub pixels included in a second pixel different from the first pixel are controlled to form a light-transmitting region, the first pixel is positioned on a ray line of light between a viewpoint of a user viewing an image display surface of the liquid crystal display panel and one of the light emission points and controlled to transmit light, and the one or more of the sub pixels included in the second pixel are arranged adjacent to the first pixel in the first direction and controlled to transmit light, and a width of the transmission region in the first direction is twice as large as a width of each pixel in the first direction” because one having ordinary skill in the art would want to provide - - a display device capable of flexibly responding according to the relation between the arrangement direction of multiple view points and the display device - - (Tomisawa, Page 2, Lines 15 – 16).
Regarding Claim 2 of the instant application, Claim 2 of ‘282’ and Tomisawa, disclose/teach everything claimed as applied above (See above). In addition, Claim 2 of ‘282’ discloses “wherein the pixels are arranged in a matrix having a row- column configuration in the first direction and a second direction orthogonal to the first direction, a ratio of a pitch between the pixels arranged in the second direction to a pitch between the light emission points arranged in the second direction is 1:4n or 1:6n” (Claim 2 of ‘282’, Lines 1 – 7). However, Claim 2 of ‘282’ fails to explicitly disclose “and a width of the transmission region in the second direction is twice as large as a width of each pixel in the second direction”.
In a similar field of endeavor, Tomisawa teaches “and a width of the transmission region in the second direction is twice as large as a width of each pixel in the second direction” (Figure 25 (Notice that the width of the transmission region including xp4/yp1 and xp4/yp2 in the second, y-direction is twice as large as the width of each pixel in the second, y-direction.)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “and a width of the transmission region in the second direction is twice as large as a width of each pixel in the second direction” because one having ordinary skill in the art would want to provide - - a display device capable of flexibly responding according to the relation between the arrangement direction of multiple view points and the display device - - (Tomisawa, Page 2, Lines 15 – 16).
Regarding Claim 3 of the instant application, Claim 2 of ‘282’ and Tomisawa disclose/teach everything claimed as applied above (See above). However, Claim 2 of ‘282’ fails to explicitly disclose “wherein the width of the transmission region in the second direction is equivalent to two of the pixels, and two pixels adjacent to each other in the second direction in the transmission region have a same light transmission degree”.
In a similar field of endeavor, Tomisawa teaches “wherein the width of the transmission region in the second direction is equivalent to two of the pixels” (Figure 25 (Notice that the width of the transmission region in the second, y-direction is equivalent to the two pixels xp4/yp1 and xp4/yp2 in the second, y-direction.)), “and two pixels adjacent to each other in the second direction in the transmission region have a same light transmission degree” (Figure 25 (Notice the activation of both of pixels xp4/yp1 and xp4/yp2 adjacent to each other in the second, y-direction to have a same degree of all sub-pixel transmission.)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “wherein the width of the transmission region in the second direction is equivalent to two of the pixels, and two pixels adjacent to each other in the second direction in the transmission region have a same light transmission degree” because one having ordinary skill in the art would want to provide - - a display device capable of flexibly responding according to the relation between the arrangement direction of multiple view points and the display device - - (Tomisawa, Page 2, Lines 15 – 16).
Regarding Claim 4 of the instant application, Claim 4 of ‘282’ and Tomisawa disclose/teach everything claimed as applied above (See above). In addition, Claim 4 of ‘282’ discloses “an acquirer configured to acquire viewpoint information of the user; and a controller configured to control image display through operation of the pixels based on the viewpoint information, wherein the viewpoint information includes information related to positions of a plurality of the viewpoints and information indicating an arrangement direction of the viewpoints” (Claim 4 of ‘282’, Lines 3 – 11). However, Claim 4 of ‘282’ fails to explicitly disclose “the controller controls the transmission region to include at least pixels positioned on straight lines connecting the light emission points and the viewpoints based on a relative rotation angle between the liquid crystal display panel and the arrangement direction and a positional relation between each viewpoint and each light emission point”.
In a similar field of endeavor, Tomisawa teaches “and the controller controls the transmission region to include at least pixels positioned on straight lines connecting the light emission points and the viewpoints based on a relative rotation angle between the liquid crystal display panel and the arrangement direction and a positional relation between each viewpoint and each light emission point (Page 25, Lines 18 – 22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “the controller controls the transmission region to include at least pixels positioned on straight lines connecting the light emission points and the viewpoints based on a relative rotation angle between the liquid crystal display panel and the arrangement direction and a positional relation between each viewpoint and each light emission point” because one having ordinary skill in the art would want to provide - - a display device capable of flexibly responding according to the relation between the arrangement direction of multiple view points and the display device - - (Tomisawa, Page 2, Lines 15 – 16).
Regarding Claim 5 of the instant application, Claim 6 of ‘282’ and Tomisawa disclose/teach everything claimed as applied above (See above). In addition, Claim 6 of ‘282’ discloses “wherein the acquirer includes an image capturer configured to capture an image of the user, a processor configured to identify the arrangement direction, the relative rotation angle, and the positional relation for right and left eyes of the user based on the captured image of the user” (Claim 6 of ‘282’, Lines 1 – 8).
Claims 1 – 5 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, and 7 (See rejections below for the specific pairing of instant application claims and copending application claims) of copending Application No. 18/226,022 in view of Tomisawa.
Regarding Claim 1 of the instant application, Claim 1 of 18/226,022 (hereinafter ‘022’) discloses “A display device comprising” (Claim 1 of ‘022’, Line 1 of Claim), “a liquid crystal display panel provided with a plurality of pixels” (Claim 1 of ‘022’, Lines 2 – 3 of Claim), “and a light source provided with a plurality of light emission points and configured to emit light to the pixels of the liquid crystal display panel” (Claim 1 of ‘022’, Lines 4 – 6 of Claim), “wherein a ratio of a pitch between the pixels arranged in a first direction to a pitch between the light emission points arranged in the first direction is 1:4n or 1:6n, n is a natural number” (Claim 1 of ‘022’, Lines 23 – 17). However, Claim 1 of ‘022’ fails to explicitly disclose “each pixel includes a plurality of sub pixels arranged in the first direction, among the pixels, a first pixel and one or more of the sub pixels included in a second pixel different from the first pixel are controlled to form a light-transmitting region, the first pixel is positioned on a ray line of light between a viewpoint of a user viewing an image display surface of the liquid crystal display panel and one of the light emission points and controlled to transmit light, and the one or more of the sub pixels included in the second pixel are arranged adjacent to the first pixel in the first direction and controlled to transmit light, and a width of the transmission region in the first direction is twice as large as a width of each pixel in the first direction”.
In a similar field of endeavor, Tomisawa teaches “each pixel includes a plurality of sub pixels arranged in the first direction” (Page 25, Line 32 and Figure 16 (Notice the each pixel PixU includes an R, G, and B sub-pixel along a first X direction that aligns with the pitch direction shown for the displays of Figures 3 and 4 as base displays.)), “among the pixels, a first pixel and one or more of the sub pixels included in a second pixel different from the first pixel are controlled to form a light-transmitting region, the first pixel is positioned on a ray line of light between a viewpoint of a user viewing an image display surface of the liquid crystal display panel and one of the light emission points and controlled to transmit light” (Figures 16 and 25 (Notice that a first pixel at xp3/yp3 and one or more than one subpixels included in a second, different pixel at xp2/yp3 are controlled to form a light transmitting region where the first pixel xp3/yp3 is position on a ray line between a viewpoint and light emission point LP to transmit light.)), “and the one or more of the sub pixels included in the second pixel are arranged adjacent to the first pixel in the first direction and controlled to transmit light” (Figure 25 (Notice the plural subpixels (i.e. rectangular regions) of second pixels xp2/yp3 are adjacent to the first pixel xp3/yp3 in the first, x-direction and controlled for light emission.)), “and a width of the transmission region in the first direction is twice as large as a width of each pixel in the first direction” (Figure 25 (Notice that the width of the transmission region including at least pixel xp3/yp3 and xp2/yp3 in the first, x-direction is twice as large as the individuals withs of pixels xp3/yp3 and xp2/yp3 in the first, x-direction.)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “each pixel includes a plurality of sub pixels arranged in the first direction, among the pixels, a first pixel and one or more of the sub pixels included in a second pixel different from the first pixel are controlled to form a light-transmitting region, the first pixel is positioned on a ray line of light between a viewpoint of a user viewing an image display surface of the liquid crystal display panel and one of the light emission points and controlled to transmit light, and the one or more of the sub pixels included in the second pixel are arranged adjacent to the first pixel in the first direction and controlled to transmit light, and a width of the transmission region in the first direction is twice as large as a width of each pixel in the first direction” because one having ordinary skill in the art would want to provide - - a display device capable of flexibly responding according to the relation between the arrangement direction of multiple view points and the display device - - (Tomisawa, Page 2, Lines 15 – 16).
Regarding Claim 2 of the instant application, Claim 1 of ‘022’ and Tomisawa, disclose/teach everything claimed as applied above (See above). However, Claim 1 of ‘022’ fails to explicitly disclose “wherein the pixels are arranged in a matrix having a row- column configuration in the first direction and a second direction orthogonal to the first direction, a ratio of a pitch between the pixels arranged in the second direction to a pitch between the light emission points arranged in the second direction is 1:4n or 1:6n, and a width of the transmission region in the second direction is twice as large as a width of each pixel in the second direction”.
In a similar field of endeavor, Tomisawa teaches “wherein the pixels are arranged in a matrix having a row-column configuration in the first direction and a second direction orthogonal to the first direction” (Figure 25 (Notice that the pixels of Figure 25 have rows in the first, x-direction and columns in the second y-direction, where the second, y-direction is orthogonal to the first, x-direction.)), “a ratio of a pitch between the pixels arranged in the second direction to a pitch between the light emission points arranged in the second direction is 1:4n or 1:6n” (Figure 25 (Notice that the pitch between pixels in the second, y-direction compared to the pitch between light emission points LP in second, y-direction is 1:6n (for at least n = natural number 1).)), “and a width of the transmission region in the second direction is twice as large as a width of each pixel in the second direction” (Figure 25 (Notice that the width of the transmission region including xp4/yp1 and xp4/yp2 in the second, y-direction is twice as large as the width of each pixel in the second, y-direction.)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “wherein the pixels are arranged in a matrix having a row- column configuration in the first direction and a second direction orthogonal to the first direction, a ratio of a pitch between the pixels arranged in the second direction to a pitch between the light emission points arranged in the second direction is 1:4n or 1:6n, and a width of the transmission region in the second direction is twice as large as a width of each pixel in the second direction” because one having ordinary skill in the art would want to provide - - a display device capable of flexibly responding according to the relation between the arrangement direction of multiple view points and the display device - - (Tomisawa, Page 2, Lines 15 – 16).
Regarding Claim 3 of the instant application, Claim 2 of ‘022’ and Tomisawa disclose/teach everything claimed as applied above (See above). However, Claim 1 of ‘022’ fails to explicitly disclose “wherein the width of the transmission region in the second direction is equivalent to two of the pixels, and two pixels adjacent to each other in the second direction in the transmission region have a same light transmission degree”.
In a similar field of endeavor, Tomisawa teaches “wherein the width of the transmission region in the second direction is equivalent to two of the pixels” (Figure 25 (Notice that the width of the transmission region in the second, y-direction is equivalent to the two pixels xp4/yp1 and xp4/yp2 in the second, y-direction.)), “and two pixels adjacent to each other in the second direction in the transmission region have a same light transmission degree” (Figure 25 (Notice the activation of both of pixels xp4/yp1 and xp4/yp2 adjacent to each other in the second, y-direction to have a same degree of all sub-pixel transmission.)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “wherein the width of the transmission region in the second direction is equivalent to two of the pixels, and two pixels adjacent to each other in the second direction in the transmission region have a same light transmission degree” because one having ordinary skill in the art would want to provide - - a display device capable of flexibly responding according to the relation between the arrangement direction of multiple view points and the display device - - (Tomisawa, Page 2, Lines 15 – 16).
Regarding Claim 4 of the instant application, Claim 1 of ‘022’ and Tomisawa disclose/teach everything claimed as applied above (See above). In addition, Claim 1 of ‘022’ discloses “an acquirer configured to acquire viewpoint information of the user; and a controller configured to control image display through operation of the pixels based on the viewpoint information, wherein the viewpoint information includes information related to positions of a plurality of the viewpoints and information indicating an arrangement direction of the viewpoints” (Claim 1 of ‘022’, Lines 7 – 15). However, Claim 1 of ‘022’ fails to explicitly disclose “the controller controls the transmission region to include at least pixels positioned on straight lines connecting the light emission points and the viewpoints based on a relative rotation angle between the liquid crystal display panel and the arrangement direction and a positional relation between each viewpoint and each light emission point”.
In a similar field of endeavor, Tomisawa teaches “and the controller controls the transmission region to include at least pixels positioned on straight lines connecting the light emission points and the viewpoints based on a relative rotation angle between the liquid crystal display panel and the arrangement direction and a positional relation between each viewpoint and each light emission point (Page 25, Lines 18 – 22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “the controller controls the transmission region to include at least pixels positioned on straight lines connecting the light emission points and the viewpoints based on a relative rotation angle between the liquid crystal display panel and the arrangement direction and a positional relation between each viewpoint and each light emission point” because one having ordinary skill in the art would want to provide - - a display device capable of flexibly responding according to the relation between the arrangement direction of multiple view points and the display device - - (Tomisawa, Page 2, Lines 15 – 16).
Regarding Claim 5 of the instant application, Claim 7 of ‘022’ and Tomisawa disclose/teach everything claimed as applied above (See above). In addition, Claim 6 of ‘022’ discloses “wherein the acquirer includes an image capturer configured to capture an image of the user, a processor configured to identify the arrangement direction, the relative rotation angle, and the positional relation for right and left eyes of the user based on the captured image of the user” (Claim 6 of ‘022’, Lines 1 – 8).
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.
Claims 1 – 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tomisawa, Issei (China Patent Document CN 117478865 A (Foreign document and translation of foreign document provided, please refer to translation for Page and Line references and to foreign document for figure reference), hereinafter referenced as Tomisawa.
Regarding Claim 1, Tomisawa discloses “A display device comprising: a liquid crystal display panel provided with a plurality of pixels” (Page 25, Lines 8 – 9), “and a light source provided with a plurality of light emission points and configured to emit light to the pixels of the liquid crystal display panel” (Page 25, Lines 9 – 11), “wherein a ratio of a pitch between the pixels arranged in a first direction to a pitch between the light emission points arranged in the first direction is 1:4n or 1:6n, n is a natural number” (Page 25, Lines 22 – 24), “each pixel includes a plurality of sub pixels arranged in the first direction” (Page 25, Line 32 and Figure 16 (Notice the each pixel PixU includes an R, G, and B sub-pixel along a first X direction that aligns with the pitch direction shown for the displays of Figures 3 and 4 as base displays.)), “among the pixels, a first pixel and one or more of the sub pixels included in a second pixel different from the first pixel are controlled to form a light-transmitting region, the first pixel is positioned on a ray line of light between a viewpoint of a user viewing an image display surface of the liquid crystal display panel and one of the light emission points and controlled to transmit light” (Figures 16 and 25 (Notice that a first pixel at xp3/yp3 and one or more than one subpixels included in a second, different pixel at xp2/yp3 are controlled to form a light transmitting region where the first pixel xp3/yp3 is position on a ray line between a viewpoint and light emission point LP to transmit light.)), “and the one or more of the sub pixels included in the second pixel are arranged adjacent to the first pixel in the first direction and controlled to transmit light” (Figure 25 (Notice the plural subpixels (i.e. rectangular regions) of second pixels xp2/yp3 are adjacent to the first pixel xp3/yp3 in the first, x-direction and controlled for light emission.)), “and a width of the transmission region in the first direction is twice as large as a width of each pixel in the first direction” (Figure 25 (Notice that the width of the transmission region including at least pixel xp3/yp3 and xp2/yp3 in the first, x-direction is twice as large as the individuals withs of pixels xp3/yp3 and xp2/yp3 in the first, x-direction.)).
Regarding Claim 2, Tomisawa discloses everything claimed as applied above (See Claim 1). In addition, Tomisawa discloses “wherein the pixels are arranged in a matrix having a row-column configuration in the first direction and a second direction orthogonal to the first direction” (Figure 25 (Notice that the pixels of Figure 25 have rows in the first, x-direction and columns in the second y-direction, where the second, y-direction is orthogonal to the first, x-direction.)), “a ratio of a pitch between the pixels arranged in the second direction to a pitch between the light emission points arranged in the second direction is 1:4n or 1:6n” (Figure 25 (Notice that the pitch between pixels in the second, y-direction compared to the pitch between light emission points LP in second, y-direction is 1:6n (for at least n = natural number 1).)), “and a width of the transmission region in the second direction is twice as large as a width of each pixel in the second direction” (Figure 25 (Notice that the width of the transmission region including xp4/yp1 and xp4/yp2 in the second, y-direction is twice as large as the width of each pixel in the second, y-direction.)).
Regarding Claim 3, Tomisawa discloses everything claimed as applied above (See Claim 2). In addition, Tomisawa discloses “wherein the width of the transmission region in the second direction is equivalent to two of the pixels” (Figure 25 (Notice that the width of the transmission region in the second, y-direction is equivalent to the two pixels xp4/yp1 and xp4/yp2 in the second, y-direction.)), “and two pixels adjacent to each other in the second direction in the transmission region have a same light transmission degree” (Figure 25 (Notice the activation of both of pixels xp4/yp1 and xp4/yp2 adjacent to each other in the second, y-direction to have a same degree of all sub-pixel transmission.)).
Regarding Claim 4, Tomisawa discloses everything claimed as applied above (See Claim 1). In addition, Tomisawa discloses “an acquirer configured to acquire viewpoint information of the user” (Page 25, Lines 11 – 13 ‘obtaining unit’), “and a controller configured to control image display through operation of the pixels based on the viewpoint information” (Page 25, Lines 13 – 15), “wherein the viewpoint information includes information related to positions of a plurality of the viewpoints and information indicating an arrangement direction of the viewpoints” (Page 25, Lines 15 – 18), “and the controller controls the transmission region to include at least pixels positioned on straight lines connecting the light emission points and the viewpoints based on a relative rotation angle between the liquid crystal display panel and the arrangement direction and a positional relation between each viewpoint and each light emission point (Page 25, Lines 18 – 22).
Regarding Claim 5, Tomisawa discloses everything claimed as applied above (See Claim 4). In addition, Tomisawa discloses “wherein the acquirer includes an image capturer configured to capture an image of the user” (Page 26, Lines 10 – 11 (Notice the acquirer (obtaining part) includes and image capturer (photographing unit) for obtaining a photographic image of a user.)), “and a processor configured to identify the arrangement direction, the relative rotation angle, and the positional relation for right and left eyes of the user based on the captured image of the user” (Page 26, Lines 11 – 14 ‘processing section’).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN M BUTCHER whose telephone number is (571)270-5575. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday from 6:30 AM to 3:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ke Xiao, can be reached at (571) 272 - 7776. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/BRIAN M BUTCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2627 December 10, 2025