DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
1. Claims 1 – 15 are pending and are under examination in this action.
2. 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
3. Claims 1, 4, 6 – 7, 9 – 10, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities.
Regarding claim 1, the recitation in line 6 is objected to for at least the following reasons. The term “if” is conditional. When the corresponding condition is not met, the associated recitations are not required elements of the claim. Based on Applicant’s present recitations, when the “light-transmitting area” and the “light-shielding area” do not exist on the transparent panel, the recitations of lines 5 – 8 of claim 1 would not be required and would therefore any prior art would read on this claim without having to teach those elements.
It is recommended that Applicant amend each “if” recitation to instead recite “when” in order to require at least one occurrence of the corresponding condition.
For purposes of this Office Action, the Office will presume that Applicant intended to require these “if” recitations and interpret them as if the term “when” was used instead.
Regarding claims 4, 6 – 7, 9 – 10, and 15, each of these claims similarly contain “if” recitations which are objected for at least the same reasons set forth above with regard to claim 1.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, these claims recite “Wherein”, using a capital “W”, which is grammatically incorrect for a claim recitation. These recitations should be amended to “wherein”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
5. Claims 1 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the recitation of “a light-shielding area” in line 5 and “the light-shielding area” in lines 6 – 7 lack sufficient antecedent basis. Particularly, the recitation of “a light-shielding area” was already introduced in line 3 of this claim. It is unclear whether these subsequent recitations are the same “area” or a different distinct “area”.
For purposes of this Office Action, it is interpreted that these recitations all refer to the same singular “light-shielding area” originally recited in line 3.
Regarding claim 3, the recitation of “a variable light-shielding area” and “a constant light-shielding area” lack sufficient antecedent basis for at least the following reasons. Claim 1 already recites a “light-shielding area”. It is unclear whether the “variable” and/or “constant” areas are part of this “light-shielding area” or are separate and distinct.
For purposes of this Office Action, it is interpreted that these recitations all refer to at least part of the “light-shielding area” originally recited in line 3 of claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, the recitation of “a variable light-shielding area” in line 7 lacks sufficient antecedent basis for at least the following reasons. Claim 3, from which claim 4 depends, already recites a “a variable light-shielding area”. It is unclear whether this recitation in claim 4 is the same or a different distinct “variable . . . area”.
The previous issues of claims 1 and 3 compound into this claim rendering it indefinite.
Regarding claim 7, the recitation “the driving part” in line 3 lacks sufficient antecedent basis. This element is included in any of the parent claims 1, 5, or 6, and is introduced as a new element in claim 7. It is unclear whether the Applicant intended to add this as a new element or have claim 7 somehow depend from claim 2, which is the only claim that introduces a “driving part”.
For at least these reasons, claim 7 is indefinite and will not be examined on the merits in this Office Action.
Regarding claim 9, the recitations “the movement distance” in lines 5 and 6 lack sufficient antecedent basis. This element has not been introduced into the claims prior to these recitations. Accordingly, it is unclear to what Applicant is referring, rendering this claim indefinite.
Regarding claim 10, the recitations of “a light-transmitting area” and “a light-shielding area” lack sufficient antecedent basis for at least the following reasons. Claim 1 already recites these elements. It is unclear whether the areas of claim 10 are the same or separate and distinct areas.
For purposes of this Office Action, it is interpreted that these recitations refer to the “light-transmitting area” and “light-shielding area” recitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, the recitations “the vertical line” and “the movement position” in lines 3 and 4, respectively, lack sufficient antecedent basis. These elements have not been introduced into the claims prior to these recitations. Accordingly, it is unclear to what Applicant is referring, rendering this claim indefinite.
Regarding claim 14, the recitations “the movement time” and “the movement position” in line 2 lack sufficient antecedent basis. These elements have not been introduced into the claims prior to these recitations. Accordingly, it is unclear to what Applicant is referring, rendering this claim indefinite.
Regarding claim 15, the recitation of “a light-transmitting area” in line 5 and “a light-shielding area” in lines 5 – 6 lack sufficient antecedent basis. Particularly, these recitations were already introduced in line 3 of this claim. It is unclear whether these subsequent recitations are the same areas or are different areas.
Additionally, it is unclear whether the recitation of “the light-shielding area” in line 7 refers to the “area” of line 3 or lines 5 – 6.
For purposes of this Office Action, it is interpreted that the recitations in lines 5 – 7 are meant to correspond to the earlier recitations in line 3.
Regarding claims 2 – 14, these claims are rejected based on their dependence from claim 1.
6. Claims 8 – 9 and 12 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01.
Regarding claim 8, the recitation “checks the position of the light-shielding film” in line 4 refers to essential element(s) that are omitted from the claim, thereby rendering this claim indefinite. Specifically, the recitation of a “position” being “checked” requires that the position of the light-shielding film being capable of changing. Applicant’s specification specifically requires the “driving part” in order to facilitate this change of position.
However, neither claim 8, or any of its parent claims, include the “driving part”, an essential element with regard to the particular language recited in claim 8.
For at least these reasons, claim 8 is rejected as being incomplete for omitting essential elements which amounts to a gap between the claimed elements rendering this claim indefinite.
Regarding claim 9, the recitation “the light-shielding part moves” in line 4 refers to essential element(s) that are omitted from the claim, thereby rendering this claim indefinite. Applicant’s specification specifically requires the “driving part” in order to facilitate this required movement.
However, neither claim 9, or any of its parent claims, include the “driving part”, an essential element with regard to the particular language recited in claim 9.
For at least these reasons, claim 9 is rejected as being incomplete for omitting essential elements which amounts to a gap between the claimed elements rendering this claim indefinite.
Regarding claim 12, the recitation “the light-shielding part moves” in line 4 refers to essential element(s) that are omitted from the claim, thereby rendering this claim indefinite. Applicant’s specification specifically requires the “driving part” in order to facilitate this required movement.
However, neither claim 12, or any of its parent claims, include the “driving part”, an essential element with regard to the particular language recited in claim 12.
For at least these reasons, claim 12 is rejected as being incomplete for omitting essential elements which amounts to a gap between the claimed elements rendering this claim indefinite.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, these claims are rejected based on their dependence from claim 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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.
8. Claims 1, 5 – 6, 10, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (U.S. Pub. 2014/0184577).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches: a display device (FIG. 1; paragraph [0044]; transparent display apparatus 100) comprising:
a transparent panel (FIG. 1; paragraph [0044]; transparent display unit 110);
a light-shielding part forming a light-shielding area on the transparent panel (FIG. 1; paragraph [0047], [0048]; light control unit 120 is a light shielding unit that forms an area in which light is shielded [light-shielding area] with respect to transparent display unit 110 to selectively control brightness of external light incident on the transparent display apparatus 100); and
a processor (FIG. 5; paragraph [0126]; control unit 515 controls the operations of the transparent display apparatus 500 / 100) correcting an image color of the light-shielding area (paragraphs [0137]; the light transmittance of the transparent display apparatus 100, as determined by light control unit 120 [light-shielding part], is determined based on luminance, color temperature, and chroma. Accordingly, the light shielding performed by light control unit 120 has the effect of correcting an image color of a corresponding [light-shielding] area by selectively controlling brightness of external light), wherein the processor checks whether both a light-transmitting area and a light-shielding area exist on the transparent panel, obtains an external illuminance value if both the light-transmitting area and the light-shielding area exist, and corrects an image color corresponding to the light-shielding area based on the obtained external illuminance value (FIGS. 1, 8; paragraphs [0044], [0048], [0058], [0164]; light control unit 120 generates a “light-shielding” area corresponding to a display object based on the brightness of external light incident on the transparent display unit 110 of the transparent display apparatus 100, as detected by optical sensor 150, to increase visibility in different lighting conditions. The detection results from optical sensor 150 determine whether or not a “light-shielding” area, to be generated by light control unit 120, is necessary. Since this “light-shielding” is selective and only applies where necessary to increase visibility of the display object, both a “light shielding rea” and a “light-transmitting area” exist in response to controlling the brightness of external light detected by optical sensor 150. As an example, please see FIG. 8 which provides an illustration of multiple areas L1, L2, and L3 that have different light transmittance values, which illustrates selective light-shielding such as that disclosed and referenced above regarding light control unit 120).
Regarding claim 15, this claim is a method recitation of the functional and operational configurations rejected above with regard to claim 1. Accordingly, this claim is rejected for at least the same reasons set forth above with regard to claim 1. A duplication of the above rejection is not included in this Office Action for the purpose of brevity.
Regarding claim 5, Kim teaches: Wherein the processor, when checking whether both the light-transmitting area and the light-shielding area exist in the transparent panel, checks the current screen mode of the transparent panel, and checks whether both the light-transmitting area and the light-shielding area exist in the transparent panel based on the current screen mode of the transparent panel (paragraphs [0128] – [0130]; the device may operate in one of a plurality of modes, each having different light transmittance and visibility as determined by the light control unit 120. When the light control unit 120 selectively control brightness of external light incident on the transparent display apparatus 100 to improve visibility, both the “light-transmitting area” and the “light-shielding area” exist).
Regarding claim 6, Kim teaches: Wherein the processor, if the current screen mode of the transparent panel is a transparent screen mode or a partially light-shielding screen mode, checks that both the light-transmitting area and the light-shielding area exist in the transparent panel (paragraphs [0130]; in the third [partially light-shielding] mode the light control unit 120 is set to a selective light-shielding state based on light characteristics from optical sensor 150. In this mode, both the “light-transmitting area” and the “light-shielding area” exist as set forth above), and
if the current screen mode of the transparent panel is a full light-shielding screen mode, checks that only the light-shielding area exists in the transparent panel (paragraph [0129]; in the second [full light-shielding screen] mode the light control unit 120 is set to maximized the shield effect and minimize light transmittance. In this mode, only the “light-shielding area” exists).
Regarding claim 10, Kim teaches: further comprising: an illuminance sensor sensing external illuminance (FIG. 1; paragraphs [0044], [0058]; optical sensor 150 detects brightness of external light from light source 140),
wherein the processor, when obtaining the external illuminance value, obtains the current external illuminance value from the illuminance sensor if determining that both a light-transmitting area and a light-shielding area exist in the transparent panel (FIGS. 1, 8; paragraphs [0044], [0048], [0058], [0164]; as set forth above, optical sensor 150 detects brightness of external light from light source 140 in order to determine a third mode of a selective light-shielding state by light control unit 120 to partially shield light from the light source 140 to increase visibility. In this mode, both the “light-transmitting area” and the “light-shielding area” exist as set forth above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Choi et al. (U.S. Pub. 2021/0149194).
Regarding claim 2, Kim fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the light-shielding part includes: a light-shielding film shielding light from the rear surface of the transparent panel; a driving part moving the light-shielding film to a target position; and a light-shielding box covering the light-shielding film and the driving part.
However, in a related field of endeavor, Choi discloses a display system having a partially transparent display [combiner 170] and a light-shielding part [light blocker 180] whose transmittance is variable based on environmental light detected by a sensor (FIGS. 1, 14; paragraphs [0065], [0066], [0118]).
With regard to claim 2, Choi teaches: wherein the light-shielding part includes: a light-shielding film shielding light from the rear surface of the transparent panel (FIG. 6; paragraph [0078]; light blocker 280 is arranged to shield light from the rear surface of partially transparent combiner 170 [panel]);
a driving part moving the light-shielding film to a target position (FIG. 6; paragraph [0081]; motor 281 [driving part] moves light blocker 280 from storage 291 to a “target position” in which a back surface of combiner 170 is covered); and
a light-shielding box covering the light-shielding film and the driving part (FIG. 6; paragraph [0081]; housing 290 [light-shielding box] covers light blocker 280 and motor 281 when the light blocker 280 is not being utilized and is stored in storage 291).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Kim and Choi to yield predictable results. More specifically, the teachings of a transparent display system having a sensor for detecting environmental light which determines whether to utilize a light shield to selectively shield a portion or an entirety of a transparent display to improve visibility, as taught by Kim, are known. Additionally, the teachings of a display system having a sensor for detecting environmental light which determines whether to trigger a motor to move a light shield to block at least part of a partially transparent display, as taught by Choi, are known as well. The combination of the known teachings of a transparent display system having a sensor for detecting environmental light which determines whether to trigger a motor to move and utilize a light shield to selectively shield a portion or an entirety of a transparent display to improve visibility. In other words, it would have been obvious to incorporate the motor of Choi to control movement and positioning of the light shield of Kim based on the detection of environmental light to improve the visibility of the transparent display system of Kim. Such a combination merely requires combining two types of light shielding, selective transmissivity of Kim with motorized movement of Choi. This combination would perform the same functionality as Kim itself but with more variability and ability to shield different lighting conditions to more effectively improve visibility. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Kim and Choi to yield the aforementioned predictable results.
Regarding claim 3, Kim fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the light-shielding film moves along the rear surface of the transparent panel to form a variable light-shielding area on the transparent panel, and wherein the light-shielding box is fixedly arranged to overlap a part of the transparent panel, and forms a constant light-shielding area on the transparent panel.
However, Choi teaches: wherein the light-shielding film moves along the rear surface of the transparent panel to form a variable light-shielding area on the transparent panel (FIG. 6; paragraph [0081]; light blocker 280 moves from storage 291 to a “target position” in which a back surface of combiner 170 is covered by moving along the rear surface of the combiner 170. When applied to Kim, the area of combiner 170 which is overlapped by light blocker 280 by this movement is a “variable light-shielding area”), and
wherein the light-shielding box is fixedly arranged to overlap a part of the transparent panel, and forms a constant light-shielding area on the transparent panel (FIG. 6; as illustrated, at least a portion of the housing 290 that corresponds to a lower back edge of combiner 170 is fixedly arranged to overlap this lower back edge of combiner 170. This prevents any light from transmitting through the lowest overlapped portion of combiner 170. This lowest overlapped portion constitutes a “constant light-shielding area”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Kim and Choi to yield predictable results for at least the reasons set forth above with regard to claim 3.
11. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, as applied to claim 1 above, as evidenced by Lee et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,947,287).
Regarding claim 11, Kim teaches: further comprising: a memory storing an illuminance-specific image color information table (FIG. 2D; paragraph [0135], [0136]; a lookup table that correlates amount of light detected by an optical sensor 610 / 150 with a shielding rate is previously stored, i.e., stored in some form of a memory),
wherein the processor, when correcting the image color corresponding to the light-shielding area, extracts image color information corresponding to the obtained external illuminance value from the illuminance-specific image color information table pre-stored in the memory, and corrects the image corresponding to the light-shielding area based on the extracted image color information (paragraphs [0137]; as set forth above, light-shielding in response to external light detected by optical sensor 610 / 150 is determined based on luminance, color temperature, and chroma. Accordingly, the light shielding performed by light control unit 120 has the effect of correcting an image color of a corresponding [light-shielding] area by selectively controlling brightness of external light based on this extracted image color information).
Kim fails to explicitly disclose that R, G, and B colors are corrected.
However, it was well-known and conventional that when a display image is corrected, R, G, and B colors of the image are corrected during this process. For evidence of this well-known and conventional teaching please see Lee (col. 5, lines 27 – 41).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to recognize the implicit and well-known and conventional teaching that when color of an image is corrected, as taught by Kim, R. G. and B colors are corrected as well.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN A LUBIT whose telephone number is (571)270-3389. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, ~6am - 3pm.
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, Temesghen Ghebretinsae can be reached at 571-272-3017. 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.
/RYAN A LUBIT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2626
Prosecution Insights