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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Preliminary Amendment
Claims 6-11, 19, 23 are amended. Claims 17-18, 20-22 are canceled.
Claims 1-16, 19, and 23-25 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “dimming units” in claims 1, 3, 5, 19, 23 and “control unit” in claim 23.
Because these claim limitations is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Drawings
Figures 1-4 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g).
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show boldface notations in Figures 13-15 and 17 as described in the specification paras 0085 and 0097. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 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 1-3, 9-10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shibazaki et al. (Japan Patent Application Publication 2018010169A, hereinafter “Shibazaki”).
Regarding Claim 1 (Original), Shibazaki teaches a self-luminous display device (par 0002 Fig 1 LED display device) comprising:
a display surface (par 0029 Fig 1 surface side of a full-color display type LED display device);
first pixels each including one or more first subpixels (par 0038 Fig 2 LED 11 construed as both a pixel and a subpixel);
second pixels each including one or more second subpixels (par 0038 Fig 2 LED 12 construed as both a pixel and a subpixel); and
dimming units configured to prevent a part of light exited from the second pixels from passing through the display surface (paras 0039,0040 Fig 2 wiring substrate 21 construed as a dimming unit having a visible light transmittance of 80% [or a dimming ratio of 20% of the light exited from LED 12]), wherein
in a plan view from a direction of a normal to the display surface, one of the second pixels is positioned so as to correspond to one or more of the first pixels (par 0029 Fig 4 a second pixel LED 12 is positioned so as to correspond to one or more of the first pixels LED 11),
outgoing light from the first pixels emitting light at a maximum luminance is first light (par 0041 Fig 4 such may be defined for LED 11),
outgoing light from the second pixels emitting light at a maximum luminance is second light (par 0041 Fig 4 such may be defined for LED 12),
a ratio of difference between an intensity of the first light exited from the first pixels and an intensity of the first light exited outside from the display surface, to the intensity of the first light exited from the first pixels is a first dimming ratio (par 0041 Fig 4 such may be defined for LED 11),
a ratio of difference between an intensity of the second light exited from the second pixels and an intensity of the second light exited outside from the display surface, to the intensity of the second light exited from the second pixels is a second dimming ratio (par 0041 Fig 4 such may be defined for LED 12, i.e. LED 12 will be dimmed ~20% by wiring substrate 21), and
the second dimming ratio is larger than the first dimming ratio (whatever the dimming of the upper layer in which LED 11 resides, light from LED 12 will experience that plus the dimming associated with wiring substrate 21).
Regarding Claim 2 (Original), Shibazaki teaches the self-luminous display device according to claim 1, wherein
the first pixels are positioned closer to the display surface than the second pixels (par 0038 Fig 2 first pixel LED 11 is positioned closer to the display surface than the second pixel LED 12).
Regarding Claim 3 (Original), Shibazaki teaches the self-luminous display device according to claim 2, further comprising
third pixels each including one or more third subpixels (par 0038 Fig 2 LED 13 construed as both a pixel and a subpixel), wherein
in the plan view, one of the third pixels is positioned so as to correspond to one or more of the second pixels (par 0029 Fig 4 a third pixel LED 13 is positioned so as to correspond to one or more of the second pixels LED 112),
the second pixels are positioned closer to the display surface than the third pixels (par 0038 Fig 2 second pixels LED 112 are positioned closer to the display surface than the third pixel LED 13),
the self-luminous display device further comprises a second dimming unit configured to prevent a part of light exited from the third pixels from passing through the display surface (paras 0039,0040 Fig 2 wiring substrate 22 construed as a dimming unit having a visible light transmittance of 80% [or a dimming ratio of 20% of the light exited from LED 13]),
outgoing light from the third pixels emitting light at a maximum luminance is third light (par 0041 Fig 4 such may be defined for LED 13),
a ratio of difference between an intensity of the third light exited from the third pixels and an intensity of the third light exited outside from the display surface, to the intensity of the third light exited from the third pixels is a third dimming ratio (par 0041 Fig 4 such may be defined for LED 13, i.e. LED 13 will be dimmed ~20% by wiring substrate 22), and
the third dimming ratio is larger than the second dimming ratio (whatever the second dimming ratio for light from LED 12, light from LED 13 will experience that plus the dimming associated with wiring substrate 22).
Regarding Claim 9 (Currently Amended), Shibazaki teaches the self-luminous display device according to claim 1, wherein in the plan view,
an area ratio of one of the second pixels to one of the first pixels stands at 0.1 to 4 inclusive (par 0038 Figs 1-4 teach each LED is a square surface mount chip type of identical area, thus an area ratio of one of the second pixels to one of the first pixels is 1, a range that overlaps with that of the claim and thus reads on the claim).
Regarding Claim 10 (Currently Amended), Shibazaki teaches the self-luminous display device according to claim 1, wherein in the plan view,
an area ratio of one of the second pixels to one of the first pixels stands at 0.5 to 4 inclusive (par 0038 Figs 1-4 teach each LED is a square surface mount chip type of identical area, thus an area ratio of one of the second pixels to one of the first pixels is 1, a range that overlaps with that of the claim and thus reads on the claim).
Regarding Claim 19 (Currently Amended), Shibazaki teaches the self-luminous display device according to claim 2, further comprising
an additional light-reflective unit positioned closer to the display surface than the dimming units (par 0037 Fig 5 the first pixels comprise a reflector integrated into the LED packaging below the first pixel LED 11 but closer to the display surface than the dimming units 21 etc.), and
configured to reflect a part of light exited from the first pixels (par 0037 Fig 5 the first pixels comprise a reflector integrated into the LED packaging below the first pixel LED 11 to reflect a part of light exited from the first pixels).
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibazaki et al. (Japan Patent Application Publication 2018010169A, hereinafter “Shibazaki”) in view of Uehara et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20120274890 A1, hereinafter “Uehara”).
Regarding Claim 4 (Original), Shibazaki teaches the self-luminous display device according to claim 1. However, Shibazaki appears not to expressly teach wherein
the first pixels and the second pixels are positioned on an identical layer.
Uehara teaches wherein
the first pixels and the second pixels are positioned on an identical layer (par 0043 annotated Fig 3 below the first pixels 31L and the second pixels 31R are positioned on an identical layer 30).
Shibazaki and Uehara are analogous art as they each pertain to self-luminous display devices. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Shibazaki with the inclusion of the first pixels and the second pixels are positioned on an identical layer of Uehara. The motivation would have been in order to provide a display panel capable of multi-view display allowing viewing of two-dimensional (2D) image (planar image) that looks different depending on from which perspective the image is viewed (Uehara par 0001).
PNG
media_image1.png
467
502
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 11 (Currently Amended), Shibazaki teaches the self-luminous display device according to claim 1. However, Shibazaki appears not to expressly teach wherein in the plan view,
one of the second pixels is positioned so as to correspond to a plurality of the first pixels.
Uehara teaches wherein in the plan view,
one of the second pixels is positioned so as to correspond to a plurality of the first pixels (par 0078 Figs 5A-5C one of the second pixels 31C is positioned so as to correspond to a plurality of the first pixels 31A,31B).
Shibazaki and Uehara are analogous art as they each pertain to self-luminous display devices. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Shibazaki with the inclusion of one of the second pixels is positioned so as to correspond to a plurality of the first pixels of Uehara. The motivation would have been in order to provide a display panel capable of multi-view display allowing viewing of two-dimensional (2D) image (planar image) that looks different depending on from which perspective the image is viewed (Uehara par 0001).
Regarding Claim 12 (Original), Shibazaki as modified teaches the self-luminous display device according to claim 11. However, Shibazaki appears not to expressly teach wherein in the plan view,
one of the second pixels corresponds to two of the first pixels positioned in a first direction.
Uehara teaches wherein in the plan view,
one of the second pixels corresponds to two of the first pixels positioned in a first direction (par 0078 Figs 5A-5C one of the second pixels 31C corresponds to two of the first pixels 31A,31B positioned in a first X direction).
Shibazaki and Uehara are analogous art as they each pertain to self-luminous display devices. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Shibazaki with the inclusion of one of the second pixels is positioned so as to correspond to a plurality of the first pixels of Uehara. The motivation would have been in order to provide a display panel capable of multi-view display allowing viewing of two-dimensional (2D) image (planar image) that looks different depending on from which perspective the image is viewed (Uehara par 0001).
Regarding Claim 13 (Original), Shibazaki as modified teaches the self-luminous display device according to claim 11. However, Shibazaki as modified appears not to expressly teach wherein in the plan view,
one of the second pixels corresponds to two of the first pixels positioned in a second direction.
Uehara teaches wherein in the plan view,
one of the second pixels corresponds to two of the first pixels positioned in a second direction (par 0078 Figs 5A-5C one of the second pixels 31C corresponds to two of the first BRG pixels positioned above pixel 31C in a first X direction).
Shibazaki and Uehara are analogous art as they each pertain to self-luminous display devices. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Shibazaki with the inclusion of one of the second pixels is positioned so as to correspond to a plurality of the first pixels of Uehara. The motivation would have been in order to provide a display panel capable of multi-view display allowing viewing of two-dimensional (2D) image (planar image) that looks different depending on from which perspective the image is viewed (Uehara par 0001).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibazaki et al. (Japan Patent Application Publication 2018010169A, hereinafter “Shibazaki”) in view of Chen et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20170160555 A1, hereinafter “Chen”).
Regarding Claim 6 (Currently Amended), Shibazaki teaches the self-luminous display device according to claim 1. However, Shibazaki appears not to expressly teach wherein the second dimming ratio stands at 90% or more and less than 100%.
Chen teaches wherein
the second dimming ratio stands at 90% or more and less than 100% (par 0040 Fig 4 first stripe [dimming unit] 21 may have the light transmittance greater than zero and less than or equal to 10%, which reads on the dimming ratio of the limitation).
Shibazaki and Chen are analogous art as they each pertain to display devices with diming units. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Shibazaki with the inclusion of the second dimming ratio of Chen. The motivation would have been in order to provide a display panel parallax barrier for forming 3D images (Chen par 0037).
Regarding Claim 7 (Currently Amended), Shibazaki teaches the self-luminous display device according to claim 1. However, Shibazaki appears not to expressly teach wherein
the second dimming ratio stands at 95% or more and less than 100%.
Chen teaches wherein
the second dimming ratio stands at 95% or more and less than 100% (par 0040 Fig 4 first stripe [dimming unit] 21 may have the light transmittance greater than zero and less than or equal to 10%, a range overlapping with that of the limitation and thus which reads on the dimming ratio of the claim).
Shibazaki and Chen are analogous art as they each pertain to display devices with diming units. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Shibazaki with the inclusion of the second dimming ratio of Chen. The motivation would have been in order to provide a display panel parallax barrier for forming 3D images (Chen par 0037).
Regarding Claim 8 (Currently Amended), Shibazaki teaches the self-luminous display device according to claim 1. However, Shibazaki appears not to expressly teach wherein
the second dimming ratio stands at 99% or more and less than 100%.
Chen teaches wherein
the second dimming ratio stands at 99% or more and less than 100% (par 0040 Fig 4 first stripe [dimming unit] 21 may have the light transmittance greater than zero and less than or equal to 10%, a range overlapping with that of the limitation and thus which reads on the dimming ratio of the claim).
Shibazaki and Chen are analogous art as they each pertain to display devices with diming units. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Shibazaki with the inclusion of the second dimming ratio of Chen. The motivation would have been in order to provide a display panel parallax barrier for forming 3D images (Chen par 0037).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23-25 are allowed. Claims 5 and 14-16 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:
Claim 5:
While closest prior art Shibazaki (20190069808 A1) and Uehara (20120274890 A1) teach portions of the limitations of Claim 5, the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the particular limitations of Claim 5, namely "dummy dimming units each having a shape identical to that of the dimming units, wherein in the plan view, a plurality of the first pixels is positioned so as to surround one of the dimming units, and a plurality of the first pixels is positioned so as to surround one of the dummy dimming units" in combination with all other limitations of the claim and of claims on which the claim depends.
Claim 14:
While closest prior art Shibazaki (20190069808 A1) and Uehara (20120274890 A1) teach portions of the limitations of Claim 14, the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the particular limitations of Claim 14, namely "in the plan view, one of the second pixels corresponds to a single first-pixel group including four of the first pixels, and wherein in the single first-pixel group, (i) two of the first pixels are positioned per line in a first direction, and(ii) two of the first pixels are positioned per line in a second direction intersecting with the first direction" in combination with all other limitations of the claim and of claims on which the claim depends.
Claim 15:
While closest prior art Shibazaki (20190069808 A1) and Uehara (20120274890 A1) teach portions of the limitations of Claim 15, the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the particular limitations of Claim 15, namely "in the plan view, one of the second pixels corresponds to a single first-pixel group including sixteen of the first pixels, and wherein in the single first-pixel group, (i) four of the first pixels are positioned per line in a first direction, and (ii) four of the first pixels are positioned per line in a second direction intersecting with the first direction" in combination with all other limitations of the claim and of claims on which the claim depends.
Claim 16:
While closest prior art Shibazaki (20190069808 A1) and Uehara (20120274890 A1) teach portions of the limitations of Claim 16, the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the particular limitations of Claim 16, namely "in the plan view, one of the second pixels is positioned at a center of the plurality of the first pixels corresponding to the second pixel" in combination with all other limitations of the claim and of claims on which the claim depends.
Claim 23:
While closest prior art Shibazaki (20190069808 A1) teaches portions of the limitations of independent Claim 23, namely “a self-luminous display device (par 0002 Fig 1 LED display device) comprising:
a display surface (par 0029 Fig 1 surface side of a full-color display type LED display device);
first pixels each including one or more first subpixels (par 0038 Fig 2 LED 11 construed as both a pixel and a subpixel);
second pixels each including one or more second subpixels (par 0038 Fig 2 LED 12 construed as both a pixel and a subpixel); and
dimming units configured to prevent a part of light exited from the second pixels from passing through the display surface (paras 0039,0040 Fig 2 wiring substrate 21 construed as a dimming unit having a visible light transmittance of 80% [or a dimming ratio of 20% of the light exited from LED 12]), wherein
in a plan view from a direction of a normal to the display surface, one of the second pixels is positioned so as to correspond to one or more of the first pixels (par 0029 Fig 4 a second pixel LED 12 is positioned so as to correspond to one or more of the first pixels LED 11),
outgoing light from the first pixels emitting light at a maximum luminance is first light (par 0041 Fig 4 such may be defined for LED 11),
outgoing light from the second pixels emitting light at a maximum luminance is second light (par 0041 Fig 4 such may be defined for LED 12),
a ratio of difference between an intensity of the first light exited from the first pixels and an intensity of the first light exited outside from the display surface, to the intensity of the first light exited from the first pixels is a first dimming ratio (par 0041 Fig 4 such may be defined for LED 11),
a ratio of difference between an intensity of the second light exited from the second pixels and an intensity of the second light exited outside from the display surface, to the intensity of the second light exited from the second pixels is a second dimming ratio (par 0041 Fig 4 such may be defined for LED 12, i.e. LED 12 will be dimmed ~20% by wiring substrate 21), and
the second dimming ratio is larger than the first dimming ratio (whatever the dimming of the upper layer in which LED 11 resides, light from LED 12 will experience that plus the dimming associated with wiring substrate 21).
the self-luminous display device further comprising a control unit configured to control an emission state of the first pixels and an emission state of the second pixels (par 0002 a display control device controls the display of the LED elements of this LED display panel)”,
the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the particular limitations of independent Claim 23, namely "wherein upon a luminance of the first pixels falling below a luminance threshold, the control unit turns off the first pixels and turns on the second pixels, the first pixels corresponding to the second pixels" in combination with all other limitations of the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK EDWARDS whose telephone number is (571)270-7731. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9a-5p EST.
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, Matthew Eason can be reached on 571-270-7230. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARK EDWARDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624
Prosecution Insights