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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant argues on pg. 18:
“… Hou is directed to a light-emitting display in which sub-pixels themselves emit light, whereas Wei is directed to a liquid crystal display in which liquid crystal elements modulate externally provided light. That is, Wei relies on controlling the orientation of liquid crystal molecules to adjust light transmission or viewing direction, which is fundamentally different from directly controlling emission of light at the pixel level.
Due to this fundamental difference, the structure and operation of the display in Wei are not compatible with those of Hou. In particular, the liquid crystal-based optical modulation mechanism disclosed in Wei does not correspond to, and cannot be directly incorporated into, the light-emitting pixel structure of Hou without substantial redesign. The Examiner has not identified any teaching or suggestion as to how such fundamentally different technologies could be combined in a manner that would result in the claimed invention…”.
Examiner responds that the claim language merely cites that the pixels include light emitting elements. This is an inherent feature of any electronic display screen, by definition. It is well-known to those of ordinary skill and understanding in the art that liquid crystal display screens include pixels (i.e. discreet areas that provide a specific light signal). Applicants argument that the teachings of Hou and Wei are incompatible is unpersuasive because each of these references include display systems that include pixels as defined above. Therefore, the argument is rendered unpersuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 2 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hou et al. (US Pub. No. 2025/0299612 A1) in view of Wei et al (US Pub. No. 2023/0215394 A1).
As to claim 1, Hou shows a display cell (i.e. panel, Figs. 1A and 1B and paras. 32 and 80), comprising: a display area (Figs. 8 – 9 and paras. 263 and 272) including: a normal pixel which includes a first normal sub-pixel to a fourth normal sub-pixel (Figs. 9A – 9C and paras. 76 and 272) each of which includes a first light emitting element (inherently the case for any pixel/sub-pixel, para. 272) which have normal viewing angles (inherently the case in any electronic display device); wherein a test circuit provides the light-on voltage to some of the sub-pixels independently from other sub-pixels (paras. 134 – 136).
Hou does not show private pixels each of which includes a second light-emitting element each of which includes a second light-emitting element and having private viewing angles different from the normal viewing angles, or a test circuit configured to test a private mode in which the private pixels are illuminated by providing a light-on voltage to the private pixel.
Wei shows private pixels (i.e. discretized liquid crystal elements, Fig. 8 and paras. 50 and 51, for example) each of which includes a second light-emitting element (Fig. 8 and paras. 50 and 51) and having private viewing angles different from the normal viewing angles (para. 94), and a test circuit configured to test a private mode in which the private pixels are illuminated by providing a light-on voltage to the private pixel (Figs. 20 – 23 and para. 99).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Hou with those of Wei because designing the system in this way allows the device to achieve uniform brightness (para. 100).
As to claim 2, Wei shows that the private viewing angle is less than the normal viewing angle (Figs. 20 – 23 and para. 99).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Hou with those of Wei because designing the system in this way allows the device to achieve uniform brightness (para. 100).
As to claim 20, Hou shows a display cell (i.e. panel, Figs. 1A and 1B and paras. 32 and 80), comprising: a display area (Figs. 8 – 9 and paras. 263 and 272) including: a normal pixel which includes a first normal sub-pixel to a fourth normal sub-pixel (Figs. 9A – 9C and paras. 76 and 272) each of which includes a first light emitting element (inherently the case for any pixel/sub-pixel, para. 272) which have normal viewing angles (inherently the case in any electronic display device); wherein a test circuit provides the light-on voltage to some of the sub-pixels independently from other sub-pixels (paras. 134 – 136).
Hou does not show a test system comprising a test circuit connected to the display area and a test device configured to provide a signal and a voltage to the display cell, private pixels having private viewing angles different from the normal viewing angles, or that the test circuit is configured to test a private mode in which the private pixels each of which includes a second light-emitting element are illuminated by providing a light-on voltage to the private pixel.
Wei shows a test system comprising a test circuit connected to a display area and a test device configured to provide a signal and a voltage to a display cell (Figs. 20 – 23 and para. 99), private pixels (i.e. liquid crystal elements, Fig. 8 and paras. 50 and 51, for example) having private viewing angles different from the normal viewing angles (para. 94), and a test circuit configured to test a private mode in which the private pixels each of which includes a second light-emitting element (Fig. 8 and paras. 50 and 51) are illuminated by providing a light-on voltage to the private pixel (Figs. 20 – 23 and para. 99).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Hou with those of Wei because designing the system in this way allows the device to achieve uniform brightness (para. 100).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 – 19 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.
Specifically, claim 3 recites that “… the first normal sub-pixel and the second normal sub-pixel are connected to a first data line, the third normal sub-pixel and the first private sub-pixel are connected to a second data line, the second private sub-pixel and the third private sub-pixel are connected to a third data line, and the fourth normal sub-pixel and the fourth private sub-pixel are connected to a fourth data line.”
The prior art does not show this configuration; therefore this claim contains allowable subject matter.
Claims 4 – 9 contain allowable subject matter at least by virtue of their dependence on claim 3.
Claim 10 recites that “…the first normal sub-pixel and the second normal sub-pixel are connected to a first data line, the third normal sub-pixel and the fourth normal sub-pixel are connected to a second data line, the second private sub-pixel and the third private sub-pixel are connected to a third data line, and the first private sub-pixel and the fourth private sub-pixel are connected to a fourth data line.”
The prior art does not show this configuration; therefore this claim contains allowable subject matter.
Claims 11 – 14 contain allowable subject matter at least by virtue of their dependence on claim 10.
Claim 15 recites that “…the first normal sub-pixel and the third private sub-pixel are connected to a first data line, the third normal sub-pixel and the first private sub-pixel are connected to a second data line, the second normal sub-pixel and the second private sub-pixel are connected to a third data line, and the fourth normal sub-pixel and the fourth private sub-pixel are connected to a fourth data line.”
The prior art does not show this configuration; therefore this claim contains allowable subject matter.
Claims 16 – 19 contain allowable subject matter at least by virtue of their dependence on claim 15.
CONCLUSION
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CARL ADAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7448. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9AM - 5PM 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, 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 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.
/CARL ADAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 2627
Prosecution Insights