DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/425,150 (USPN 2026/0120630 A1) and copending application 19/443,632 (USPN 2026/0134827 A1), respectively. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it is clear that all the elements of the application claims 1-20 are to be found in each copending application claims 1-20 (as the application claims 1-20 fully encompasses each copending application claims 1-20). The difference between the application claims 1-20 lies in the fact that each copending application claims include more elements and are thus more specific. Thus the invention of claims 1-20 of each copending application is in effect a “species” of the “generic” invention of the application claims 1-20. It has been held that the generic invention is “anticipated” by the “species”. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Since application claims 1-20 are anticipated by claims 1-20 of each copending application, it is not patentably distinct from claims 1-20 of each copending application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Instant application 19/629,760
Copending application 19/425,150 (USPN 2026/0120630 A1)
Copending application 19/443,632 (USPN 2026/0134827 A1)
1. An electronic device comprising:
a display panel configured to adjust a viewing angle at which at least a portion of an image displayed via a display area of the display panel is viewable;
display driver circuitry; and
at least one processor comprising processing circuitry,
wherein the display driver circuitry is configured to:
receive, from the at least one processor, an image to be displayed via the display area of the display panel,
in response to a display function for user privacy being applied to a first layer of the image and a second layer of the image that is positioned below the first layer and partially overlaps the first layer, identify first pixels, corresponding to the first and second layers, on which a pixel-processing is to be performed to narrow a viewing angle, and
perform the pixel-processing on the first pixels to apply the display function to the first and second layers, and
wherein viewing angles of the first and second layers to which the display function is applied are narrower than a viewing angle of a portion of a third layer of the image to which the display function is not applied, the portion of the third layer positioned below the first and second layers and not overlapping the first and second layers.
1. An electronic device comprising:
a display panel configured to adjust a viewing angle of at least a portion of an image displayed on the display panel;
display driver circuitry; and
at least one processor comprising processing circuitry, wherein the display driver circuitry is configured to:
obtain, from the at least one processor, a composition list regarding layers included in an image to be displayed on the display panel,
receive, from the at least one processor, the image, identify, using the composition list, applying a filter for user privacy to a second layer of the image positioned below a first layer of the image to partially overlap the first layer of the image, the first layer of the image being transparent or translucent, and
in accordance with the identifying, based on performing a pixel processing with respect to pixels corresponding to the second layer of the image to apply the filter to the second layer of the image and also apply the filter to a portion of the first layer overlapping the second layer of the image, display, on the display panel, the image including the portion of the first layer having a viewing angle narrower than a viewing angle of a remaining portion of the first layer, and the second layer that has a viewing angle narrower than the viewing angle of the remaining portion of the first layer.
1. An electronic device comprising:
a display panel configured to adjust a viewing angle of at least a portion of an image displayed on the display panel;
display driver circuitry; and at least one processor comprising processing circuitry, wherein the display driver circuitry is configured to:
display, on the display panel, an image including a first layer, and a second layer positioned on a first portion of the first layer to overlap the first layer, while displaying the image, receive, from the at least one processor, at least one command associated with a filter for user privacy, based on receiving, from the at least one processor, the at least one command according to a first input for applying the filter to the second layer of the image, narrow a viewing angle of the second layer of the image, in accordance with performing a pixel processing for the filter with respect to a first area of the display panel displaying the second layer of the image, and based on receiving, from the at least one processor, the at least one command according to a second input for applying the filter to the first area of the display panel displaying the second layer of the image, narrow a viewing angle of a second portion of the first layer of the image and a viewing angle of the second layer of the image, in accordance with performing the pixel processing with respect to the first area of the display panel and a second area of the display panel around the first area of the display panel.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu et al. (USPN 2015/0100884 A1) in view of Vannier et al. (USPN 10,102,648 B1), further in view of Hsieh et al. (USPN 2022/0050314 A1).
As to claim 1, Ryu teaches an electronic device comprising: a display panel; display driver circuitry; and at least one processor comprising processing circuitry (see at least [0023] “a computing device may involve a graphics processing unit (e.g., 3D compositor 111), a frame buffer 109, a display controller 113, and a display 115”; [0033] “a computing device is depicted that includes a system on a chip 401, external memory 409, and a display screen 413. In one or more embodiments, the system on a chip 401 may be implemented to include a central processing unit (CPU) 403 and display controller 405.”),
wherein the display driver circuitry is configured to:
receive, from the at least one processor, an image to be displayed via the display area of the display panel (see at least [0034] “User manipulation of the graphical user-interface may be monitored, tracked, and graphically verified … by generating updated displays of the graphical user-interface in the CPU 403 (or a graphics processing unit). Once generated, updated displays are stored in external memory 409”; [0035] “the display controller retrieves the rendered data from the external memory 409 and composes a display frame from the rendered data and the video data. … The resulting composited display frame is sent to the display screen 413”; [0037] “application data is generated by one or more applications executing in the CPU. In one or more embodiments, the application data includes graphical output produced by the executing applications. A number of graphical layers is mapped to the graphical output”),
the image comprises a plurality of graphical layers (see at least [0026] “a display frame displayed in a screen or display panel of a computing device is composed of content displayed in a plurality of discrete graphical layers”; [0037] “A number of graphical layers is mapped to the graphical output, and a composition list is generated at 503 to determine the number of graphical layers to be composed.”).
Ryu does not directly teach a display panel configured to adjust a viewing angle at which at least a portion of an image displayed via a display area of the display panel is viewable; in response to a display function for user privacy being applied to a first layer of the image and a second layer of the image that is positioned below the first layer and partially overlaps the first layer, identify first pixels, corresponding to the first and second layers, on which a pixel-processing is to be performed to narrow a viewing angle, and perform the pixel-processing on the first pixels to apply the display function to the first and second layers, and wherein viewing angles of the first and second layers to which the display function is applied are narrower than a viewing angle of a portion of a third layer of the image to which the display function is not applied, the portion of the third layer positioned below the first and second layers and not overlapping the first and second layers.
Vannier teaches a first layer of the image and a second layer of the image that is positioned below the first layer and partially overlaps the first layer (see at least col. 2, lines 42-53 “the term “content layers,” may refer to content that is layered such that at least a portion of a first content overlaps at least another portion of a second content. In at least one embodiment, a first content layer that is overlapped by a second layer may be referred as being below the second layer and the second layer may be referred to as being above the first layer. In some embodiments, content layers may be in a z-order stack, where each layer is at a different z-order position. In some embodiments, the content layers may include the z-order position, a location of the content …, a size of the content”; col. 14 lines 18-28 “the plurality of content layers may be in a z-order stack, where each layer may have a different z-order position in the z-order stack. Accordingly, the z-order stack may have a bottom layer and a top layer. An example of a z-order stack may include Layer_1 to Layer_n, where Layer_1 may be the bottom layer and Layer_n may be the top layer. In this example, Layer_n−1 may have a z-order position less than and/or below the z-order position of Layer_n.”),
identify first pixels, corresponding to the first and second layers, on which a pixel-processing is to be performed (see at least col. 16 lines 7-15 “block 404 may also determine another area of each content layer that is overlapped by the area of the secure content. In some embodiments, determining the layers that are overlapped by the secure content may be based on a z-order position of each of the plurality of content layers and/or an area of each of the overlapped content layers”; col. 18 lines 45-55 “a content layer in the z-order stack may be selected. In some embodiments, a content layer may be selected based on z-order position of the content layer in the z-order stack”; co. 18 line 56 – col. 19 line 10 “a determination may be made whether the selected layer is below a theoretical secure content layer”; col. 19 lines 11-20 “a pixel of the selected layer may be selected”; col. 19 lines 21-45 “a determination may be made whether the selected pixel is within an area of the secure content. … whether the selected pixel is within the area of the secure content may be determined based on a comparison of the selected pixel location within the image and the area of the secure content in the same image”; col. 19 lines 46-57 “At block 512, a transparency of the selected pixel may be modified.”), and
the portion of the third layer positioned below the first and second layers and not overlapping the first and second layers (see at least col. 17 lines 1-8 “assume there are four layers, Layer_1 through Layer_4 (Layer_1 being the bottom of a z-order stack and Layer_4 being the top), and the secure content is at Layer_3”; col. 19 lines 21-45 “If the selected pixel has a location of (8, 15), then the selected pixel may not be within the area of the secure content. However, if the selected pixel has a location of (15, 40), then the selected pixel may be within the area of the secure content”; col. 19 lines 58-67 “if it is determined at decision block 508 that the selected pixel is not within the area of the secure content, then process 500 may proceed to decision block 514”; col. 22 lines 23-67: Layer_1 through Layer_4 in a z-order stack and modifying only portions of underlying layers corresponding to the relevant spatial region).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ryu’s processing and composition of graphical layers according to Vannier’s teachings such that the relative z-order positions, locations, and overlapping areas of the graphical layers are determined and pixels of the individual layers are identified according to whether the pixels fall within a selected spatial region. Such a modification would have predictably enabled Ryu’s display processing to identify and process particular portions of individual graphical layers while maintaining the relative spatial and z-order relationships among the layers.
The combination of Ryu and Vannier does not directly teach a display panel configured to adjust a viewing angle at which at least a portion of an image displayed via a display area of the display panel is viewable; a display function for user privacy; identify first pixels, on which a pixel-processing is to be performed to narrow a viewing angle; perform the pixel-processing on the first pixels to apply the display function to the first and second layers; and wherein viewing angles of the first and second layers to which the display function is applied are narrower than a viewing angle of a portion of a third layer of the image to which the display function is not applied.
Hsieh teaches a display panel configured to adjust a viewing angle at which at least a portion of an image displayed via a display area of the display panel is viewable; a display function for user privacy (see at least [0011] “the display may provide selective privacy areas. For example, the user may select areas of the display to enable the privacy function, while working normally in different portions of the display”; [0019] “when a user selects a portion of the display 100 to activate a selective privacy mode, the pixel electrodes 118 that are associated with the PDLCs 120 within a user selected area may be activated. The pixel electrodes 118 may apply a voltage to the PDLCs 120 within the user selected area to orient the PDLCs 120 to allow the collimated light from the collimated BLU 102 to pass through. As a result, the user selected area may appear black when viewed at wide angles outside of the range of collimation.”);
identify first pixels, on which a pixel-processing is to be performed to narrow a viewing angle; perform the pixel-processing on the first pixels to apply the display function (see at least [0034] “The controller 148 may determine which PDLCs 120 are associated with, or located within, the area of the display 100 that is selected. The controller 148 may then activate the pixel electrodes 118 that are associated with the PDLCs 120 within the area of the display 100”; [0045] “the controller 148 may identify the PDLCs 120 that are associated with the area 310. The controller 148 may then apply a voltage to the PDLCs 120 in the area 310 with the respective pixel electrodes 118”; [0054] “the light emitted from the LEDs and/or light guide plate below the area of the display that is selected may have a narrow viewing angle.”); and
wherein viewing angles of the first and second layers to which the display function is applied are narrower than a viewing angle of a portion of a third layer of the image to which the display function is not applied (see at least Hsieh [0020] “Any person who attempts to view the selected area at a viewing angle greater than 30 degrees may not see the content within the user selected area that has the privacy mode enabled”; [0021] “the remaining PDLCs 120 that do not receive a voltage from the respective pixel electrodes 118 may be oriented to scatter the light from the collimated BLU 102. As a result, the remaining portion of the display 100 may be seen at wider angles. Thus, the pixel electrodes 118 may allow the privacy mode to be enabled for selective portions of the display 100 rather than the entire display 100”; [0056] “the remaining pixel electrodes that do not receive a voltage may be oriented to scatter light. … such that the light may be seen at wider angles.”).
In the resulting combination, Vannier’s teachings regarding relative z-order, layer location, overlap, and pixel-by-pixel spatial identification would identify first pixels, corresponding to the first and second layers, on which a pixel-processing is to be performed to narrow a viewing angle, and Hsieh’s selective privacy processing would be performed on those identified pixels to apply the display function to the first and second layers. Because Hsieh’s privacy processing is selectively applied to the identified spatial region, the portions of the first and second layers corresponding to that region would have the narrowed viewing angle taught by Hsieh, and pixels outside that identified region would not receive the selective privacy processing and would retain the wider viewing angle taught by Hsieh [0021] and [0056]. Therefore, where Vannier’s multilayer z-order arrangement includes a portion of a third layer positioned below the first and second layers and not overlapping the first and second layers, that non-overlapping portion would fall outside the identified privacy region, would not receive Hsieh’s selective privacy processing, and would therefore have a viewing angle wider than the viewing angles of the first and second layers to which the privacy function is applied.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Ryu and Vannier by applying Hsieh’s selective privacy processing to the pixels identified according to Vannier as corresponding to the first and second layers within the selected privacy region, in order to prevent others positioned outside the intended viewing range from viewing sensitive information while permitting portions of the display outside the privacy region to remain viewable at wider angles (see Hsieh [0011], [0019]-[0021]).
As to claim 14, Ryu teaches an electronic device comprising: a display; at least one processor comprising processing circuitry; and memory comprising one or more storage media storing instructions (see at least [0023] “a computing device may involve a graphics processing unit (e.g., 3D compositor 111), a frame buffer 109, a display controller 113, and a display 115”; [0033] “a computing device is depicted that includes a system on a chip 401, external memory 409, and a display screen 413. In one or more embodiments, the system on a chip 401 may be implemented to include a central processing unit (CPU) 403 and display controller 405.”; [0034] “User manipulation of the graphical user-interface may be monitored, tracked, and graphically verified … by generating updated displays of the graphical user-interface in the CPU 403 (or a graphics processing unit). Once generated, updated displays are stored in external memory 409”; [0035] “the display controller retrieves the rendered data from the external memory 409 and composes a display frame from the rendered data and the video data. … The resulting composited display frame is sent to the display screen 413”; [0037] “application data is generated by one or more applications executing in the CPU. In one or more embodiments, the application data includes graphical output produced by the executing applications. A number of graphical layers is mapped to the graphical output”)
an image comprises a plurality of graphical layers (see at least [0026] “a display frame displayed in a screen or display panel of a computing device is composed of content displayed in a plurality of discrete graphical layers”; [0037] “A number of graphical layers is mapped to the graphical output, and a composition list is generated at 503 to determine the number of graphical layers to be composed.”).
Ryu does not directly teach a display configured to adjust a viewing angle at which at least a portion of an image displayed via a display area is viewable; in response to a display function for user privacy being applied to a first layer of the image to be displayed via the display area and a second layer of the image that is positioned below the first layer and partially overlaps the first layer, identify first pixels, corresponding to the first and second layers, on which a pixel-processing is to be performed to narrow a viewing angle, and perform the pixel-processing on the first pixels to apply the display function to the first and second layers, wherein viewing angles of the first and second layers to which the display function is applied are narrower than a viewing angle of a portion of a third layer of the image to which the display function is not applied, the portion of the third layer positioned below the first and second layers and not overlapping the first and second layers.
Vannier teaches a first layer of the image to be displayed via the display area and a second layer of the image that is positioned below the first layer and partially overlaps the first layer (see at least col. 2, lines 42-53 “the term “content layers,” may refer to content that is layered such that at least a portion of a first content overlaps at least another portion of a second content. In at least one embodiment, a first content layer that is overlapped by a second layer may be referred as being below the second layer and the second layer may be referred to as being above the first layer. In some embodiments, content layers may be in a z-order stack, where each layer is at a different z-order position. In some embodiments, the content layers may include the z-order position, a location of the content …, a size of the content”; col. 14 lines 18-28 “the plurality of content layers may be in a z-order stack, where each layer may have a different z-order position in the z-order stack. Accordingly, the z-order stack may have a bottom layer and a top layer. An example of a z-order stack may include Layer_1 to Layer_n, where Layer_1 may be the bottom layer and Layer_n may be the top layer. In this example, Layer_n−1 may have a z-order position less than and/or below the z-order position of Layer_n.”),
identify first pixels, corresponding to the first and second layers, on which a pixel-processing is to be performed (see at least col. 16 lines 7-15 “block 404 may also determine another area of each content layer that is overlapped by the area of the secure content. In some embodiments, determining the layers that are overlapped by the secure content may be based on a z-order position of each of the plurality of content layers and/or an area of each of the overlapped content layers”; col. 18 lines 45-55 “a content layer in the z-order stack may be selected. In some embodiments, a content layer may be selected based on z-order position of the content layer in the z-order stack”; co. 18 line 56 – col. 19 line 10 “a determination may be made whether the selected layer is below a theoretical secure content layer”; col. 19 lines 11-20 “a pixel of the selected layer may be selected”; col. 19 lines 21-45 “a determination may be made whether the selected pixel is within an area of the secure content. … whether the selected pixel is within the area of the secure content may be determined based on a comparison of the selected pixel location within the image and the area of the secure content in the same image”; col. 19 lines 46-57 “At block 512, a transparency of the selected pixel may be modified.”), and
the portion of the third layer positioned below the first and second layers and not overlapping the first and second layers (see at least col. 17 lines 1-8 “assume there are four layers, Layer_1 through Layer_4 (Layer_1 being the bottom of a z-order stack and Layer_4 being the top), and the secure content is at Layer_3”; col. 19 lines 21-45 “If the selected pixel has a location of (8, 15), then the selected pixel may not be within the area of the secure content. However, if the selected pixel has a location of (15, 40), then the selected pixel may be within the area of the secure content”; col. 19 lines 58-67 “if it is determined at decision block 508 that the selected pixel is not within the area of the secure content, then process 500 may proceed to decision block 514”; col. 22 lines 23-67: Layer_1 through Layer_4 in a z-order stack and modifying only portions of underlying layers corresponding to the relevant spatial region).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ryu’s processing and composition of graphical layers according to Vannier’s teachings such that the relative z-order positions, locations, and overlapping areas of the graphical layers are determined and pixels of the individual layers are identified according to whether the pixels fall within a selected spatial region. Such a modification would have predictably enabled Ryu’s display processing to identify and process particular portions of individual graphical layers while maintaining the relative spatial and z-order relationships among the layers.
The combination of Ryu and Vannier does not directly teach a display panel configured to adjust a viewing angle at which at least a portion of an image displayed via a display area of the display panel is viewable; a display function for user privacy; identify first pixels, on which a pixel-processing is to be performed to narrow a viewing angle; perform the pixel-processing on the first pixels to apply the display function to the first and second layers; and wherein viewing angles of the first and second layers to which the display function is applied are narrower than a viewing angle of a portion of a third layer of the image to which the display function is not applied.
a display configured to adjust a viewing angle at which at least a portion of an image displayed via a display area is viewable; a display function for user privacy being applied, narrow a viewing angle, and perform the pixel-processing on the first pixels to apply the display function to the first and second layers, wherein viewing angles of the first and second layers to which the display function is applied are narrower than a viewing angle of a portion of a third layer of the image to which the display function is not applied.
Hsieh teaches a display configured to adjust a viewing angle at which at least a portion of an image displayed via a display area is viewable; a display function for user privacy being applied (see at least [0011] “the display may provide selective privacy areas. For example, the user may select areas of the display to enable the privacy function, while working normally in different portions of the display”; [0019] “when a user selects a portion of the display 100 to activate a selective privacy mode, the pixel electrodes 118 that are associated with the PDLCs 120 within a user selected area may be activated. The pixel electrodes 118 may apply a voltage to the PDLCs 120 within the user selected area to orient the PDLCs 120 to allow the collimated light from the collimated BLU 102 to pass through. As a result, the user selected area may appear black when viewed at wide angles outside of the range of collimation.”);
identify first pixels, on which a pixel-processing is to be performed to narrow a viewing angle; perform the pixel-processing on the first pixels to apply the display function (see at least [0034] “The controller 148 may determine which PDLCs 120 are associated with, or located within, the area of the display 100 that is selected. The controller 148 may then activate the pixel electrodes 118 that are associated with the PDLCs 120 within the area of the display 100”; [0045] “the controller 148 may identify the PDLCs 120 that are associated with the area 310. The controller 148 may then apply a voltage to the PDLCs 120 in the area 310 with the respective pixel electrodes 118”; [0054] “the light emitted from the LEDs and/or light guide plate below the area of the display that is selected may have a narrow viewing angle.”); and
pixel-processing is to be performed to narrow a viewing angle, and perform the pixel-processing on the first pixels to apply the display function to the first and second layers, wherein viewing angles of the first and second layers to which the display function is applied are narrower than a viewing angle of a portion of a third layer of the image to which the display function is not applied (see at least Hsieh [0020] “Any person who attempts to view the selected area at a viewing angle greater than 30 degrees may not see the content within the user selected area that has the privacy mode enabled”; [0021] “the remaining PDLCs 120 that do not receive a voltage from the respective pixel electrodes 118 may be oriented to scatter the light from the collimated BLU 102. As a result, the remaining portion of the display 100 may be seen at wider angles. Thus, the pixel electrodes 118 may allow the privacy mode to be enabled for selective portions of the display 100 rather than the entire display 100”; [0056] “the remaining pixel electrodes that do not receive a voltage may be oriented to scatter light. … such that the light may be seen at wider angles.”).
In the resulting combination, Vannier’s teachings regarding relative z-order, layer location, overlap, and pixel-by-pixel spatial identification would identify first pixels, corresponding to the first and second layers, on which a pixel-processing is to be performed to narrow a viewing angle, and Hsieh’s selective privacy processing would be performed on those identified pixels to apply the display function to the first and second layers. Because Hsieh’s privacy processing is selectively applied to the identified spatial region, the portions of the first and second layers corresponding to that region would have the narrowed viewing angle taught by Hsieh, and pixels outside that identified region would not receive the selective privacy processing and would retain the wider viewing angle taught by Hsieh [0021] and [0056]. Therefore, where Vannier’s multilayer z-order arrangement includes a portion of a third layer positioned below the first and second layers and not overlapping the first and second layers, that non-overlapping portion would fall outside the identified privacy region, would not receive Hsieh’s selective privacy processing, and would therefore have a viewing angle wider than the viewing angles of the first and second layers to which the privacy function is applied.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Ryu and Vannier by applying Hsieh’s selective privacy processing to the pixels identified according to Vannier as corresponding to the first and second layers within the selected privacy region, in order to prevent others positioned outside the intended viewing range from viewing sensitive information while permitting portions of the display outside the privacy region to remain viewable at wider angles (see Hsieh [0011], [0019]-[0021]).
As to claim 2, the combination of Ryu, Vannier and Hsieh teach the electronic device of claim 1 (see above rejection), wherein the display driver circuitry is configured to: based on information obtained from the at least one processor, perform a first identification of positions of layers of the image and a second identification of at least one layer of the image to which the display function is to be applied; and based on the first and second identifications, identify the first pixels (see Ryu at least [0037] “application data is generated by one or more applications executing in the CPU. In one or more embodiments, the application data includes graphical output produced by the executing applications. A number of graphical layers is mapped to the graphical output, and a composition list is generated at 503 to determine the number of graphical layers to be composed”; Vannier col. 2 lines 48-53 “the content layers may include the z-order position, a location of the content (e.g., within a window, image, or the like), a size of the content, a transparency of the content, or the like”; col. 14 lines 33-35 “secure content may be determined and/or identified based on a tag and/or other identifier associated with the content of a layer”; col. 15 lines 40-43 “the area may include a location of the secure content within the image. In at least one embodiment, the location may be based on a pixel-based Cartesian coordinate system”; col. 16 lines 9-13 “determining the layers that are overlapped by the secure content may be based on a z-order position of each of the plurality of content layers and/or an area of each of the overlapped content layers”; col. 19 lines 25-29 “whether the selected pixel is within the area of the secure content may be determined based on a comparison of the selected pixel location within the image and the area of the secure content in the same image”; and Hsieh [0034] “The controller 148 may determine which PDLCs 120 are associated with, or located within, the area of the display 100 that is selected.”).
As to claim 3, the combination of Ryu, Vannier and Hsieh teach the electronic device of claim 2 (see above rejection), wherein the display driver circuitry is configured to: based on information obtained from the at least one processor, perform a third identification of stacking order of the layers; and based on the first, second, and third identifications, identify the first pixels (see Vannier col. 2 lines 48-50 “content layers may be in a z-order stack, where each layer is at a different z-order position”; col. 14 lines 18-20 “the plurality of content layers may be in a z-order stack, where each layer may have a different z-order position in the z-order stack”; col. 16 lines 9-13 “determining the layers that are overlapped by the secure content may be based on a z-order position of each of the plurality of content layers and/or an area of each of the overlapped content layers”; col. 18 lines 47-48 “a content layer may be selected based on z-order position of the content layer in the z-order stack”; col. 18 line 67 – col. 19 line 3 “determining whether the selected layer is below the theoretical secure content layer may be based on a comparison of a z-order position of the selected layer and the theoretical z-order position.”).
As to claim 4, the combination of Ryu, Vannier and Hsieh teach the electronic device of claim 3 (see above rejection), wherein the display driver circuitry is configured to: based on information obtained from the at least one processor, perform a fourth identification of a radius of curvature of corners of each of the layers; and based on the first, second, third, and fourth identifications, identify the first pixels. (see Hsieh at least [0033] “the selected area may be dynamic. For example, the user may draw an area on the display 100 to enable the partial display privacy mode. For example, the user may draw a box, a circle, a freeform shape, and the like, around text, an image, or any other image on the display 100 to enable the partial display privacy mode.”; [0044] “Although the area 310 is shown as rectangle, it should be noted that the area 310 may be any geometric shape such as a square, a circle, an oval, any numbered side polygon (e.g., a pentagon, a hexagon, and the like), and so forth.”; [0052] “the selection area may be a geometric shape. For example, a square, a rectangle, a circle”).
As to claim 5, the combination of Ryu, Vannier and Hsieh teach the electronic device of claim 1 (see above rejection), wherein the first and second layers are displayed opaquely (see Vannier at least col. 3 lines 33-35 “the secure content (or a portion thereof) may not be displayed to a user if an opaque layer (e.g., an advertisement) overlaps the secure content (or a portion thereof)”; col. 19 lines 47-55 “a pixel may include a color of the pixel and an opaque/transparency indicator. … the opaque/transparency indicator may be the alpha channel with a value between 0 and 1, where 0 indicates that the pixel is transparent … and a 1 indicates that the pixel is opaque.” – note selection of an opaque layer represents a conventional implementation choice according to the graphical content intended to be displayed).
As to claim 6, the combination of Ryu, Vannier and Hsieh teach the electronic device of claim 1 (see above rejection), wherein the display driver circuitry is configured to: receive, from the at least one processor, another image to be displayed via the display area of the display panel (see Ryu at least [0034] “generating updated displays of the graphical user-interface in the CPU 403”; [0035] “The resulting composited display frame is sent to the display screen 413”; [0036] “steps 501-513 may be repeated continuously throughout an operation of a computing device.”),
in response to the display function being applied to a fifth layer of the other image that is positioned below a fourth layer of the other image and overlaps a first portion of the fourth layer, identify second pixels, corresponding to the first portion of the fourth layer and the fifth layer, on which the pixel- processing is to be performed to control a viewing angle, and perform the pixel-processing on the second pixels to apply the display function to the first layer and the second layer (see Vannier col. 14 lines 19-20 “each layer may have a different z-order position in the z-order stack”; col. 14 lines 59-61 “the area of the secure content may overlap at least another area of at least another one of the plurality of content layers”; col. 16 lines 7-9 “determine another area of each content layer that is overlapped by the area of the secure content”; col. 19 lines 21-23“a determination may be made whether the selected pixel is within an area of the secure content” and Hsieh at least [0034], [0045], [0054]: selective viewing-angle processing of the identified area), and
wherein a viewing angle of the first portion of the fourth layer to which the display function is applied and a viewing angle of the fifth layer to which the display function is applied are narrower than a viewing angle of a second portion of the fourth layer not overlapping the second layer (see Hsieh at least [0021] “the remaining portion of the display 100 may be seen at wider angles”; [0056] “the remaining pixel electrodes that do not receive a voltage may be oriented to scatter light … such that the light may be seen at wider angles.” - note the same processing taught for the first multilayer image would have been obvious to apply to a subsequently received multilayer image because Ryu expressly processes successive images and Vannier’s layer/pixel processing is performed dynamically as layers change or are updated).
As to claim 7, the combination of Ryu, Vannier and Hsieh teach the electronic device of claim 6 (see above rejection), wherein the fourth layer is translucent to allow a layer of the other image positioned below the fourth layer to be viewed through at least a portion of the fourth layer (see Vannier col. 3 lines 13-16 “the area of the secure content may be visible in the image through each transparently modified area. The transparency of each overlapped area may be modified to be fully transparent or partially transparent.”; col. 19 lines 51-53 “the opaque/transparency indicator may be the alpha channel with a value between 0 and 1”).
As to claim 8, the combination of Ryu, Vannier and Hsieh teach the electronic device of claim 1 (see above rejection), wherein the display driver circuitry is configured to: perform the pixel-processing on the first pixels to apply the display function to the first and second layers after performing another pixel-processing, for displaying the image, that adjusts a data voltage applied to a second sub-pixel in the display panel adjacent to a first sub-pixel in the display panel based on an adjustment of a data voltage applied to the first sub-pixel (see Hsieh at least [0017] “selectively control the voltages of pixel electrodes 118.”; [0019] “The pixel electrodes 118 may apply a voltage to the PDLCs 120 within the user selected area to orient the PDLCs 120 to allow the collimated light from the collimated BLU 102 to pass through. As a result, the user selected area may appear black when viewed at wide angles outside of the range of collimation.”; [0054] “At block 408, the method 400 applies a voltage to the pixel electrode to position a corresponding liquid crystal dispersed in a polymer layer to be transparent to allow collimated light emitted from a collimated back light unit to pass through. The voltage may be applied to the pixel electrode or electrodes that are identified to orient the pixel electrodes to allow the collimated light to pass through. Thus, the light emitted from the LEDs and/or light guide plate below the area of the display that is selected may have a narrow viewing angle.”).
As to claim 9, the combination of Ryu, Vannier and Hsieh teach the electronic device of claim 8 (see above rejection), wherein the other pixel-processing comprises performing at least one of: an upscaling with respect to an image displayed via the display panel; an edge sharpening of at least one visual object included in an image displayed via the display panel; a blur processing with respect to at least a portion of an image via displayed the display panel; a high dynamic range (HDR) processing with respect to at least a portion of an image displayed via the display panel; a temporal dithering with respect to at least a portion of an image displayed via the display panel; or a spatial dithering with respect to at least a portion of an image displayed via the display panel (note one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized upscaling, sharpening, blur processing, HDR processing, temporal dithering, and spatial dithering as conventional forms of image processing routinely performed. Therefore, selection of any such known image-processing would have been obvious).
As to claim 10, the combination of Ryu, Vannier and Hsieh teach the electronic device of claim 1 (see above rejection), wherein the display panel comprises: a first set of areas in the display area; and a second set of areas in the display area, wherein areas included in the first set and areas included in the second set are arranged to alternate with each other, and wherein light emitted from pixels positioned in the areas included in the first set has a narrower viewing angle than light emitted from pixels positioned in the areas included in the second set (see Hsieh at least [0020] “Any person who attempts to view the selected area at a viewing angle greater than 30 degrees may not see the content within the user selected area that has the privacy mode enabled”; [0021] “the remaining PDLCs 120 that do not receive a voltage from the respective pixel electrodes 118 may be oriented to scatter the light from the collimated BLU 102. As a result, the remaining portion of the display 100 may be seen at wider angles. Thus, the pixel electrodes 118 may allow the privacy mode to be enabled for selective portions of the display 100 rather than the entire display 100”; [0034] “The controller 148 may determine which PDLCs 120 are associated with, or located within, the area of the display 100 that is selected. The controller 148 may then activate the pixel electrodes 118 that are associated with the PDLCs 120 within the area of the display 100”; [0045] “the controller 148 may identify the PDLCs 120 that are associated with the area 310. The controller 148 may then apply a voltage to the PDLCs 120 in the area 310 with the respective pixel electrodes 118”; [0054] “the light emitted from the LEDs and/or light guide plate below the area of the display that is selected may have a narrow viewing angle.”; [0056] “the remaining pixel electrodes that do not receive a voltage may be oriented to scatter light. … such that the light may be seen at wider angles.”).
As to claim 11, the combination of Ryu, Vannier and Hsieh teach the electronic device of claim 10 (see above rejection), wherein the display panel includes: a first layer including a plurality of pixels each including sub-pixels; and a second layer, disposed above the first layer, including a black matrix, and wherein the black matrix partially overlies the pixels positioned in the areas included in the first set and does not overlie the pixels positioned in the areas included in the second set (see Hsieh at least [0047] “the display 100 shows a black privacy screen 312 within the area 310 that was selected”; [0048] “the display 100 may allow for a selective privacy mode where portions of the display 100 may be selected to enable the black privacy screen.”).
As to claim 12, the combination of Ryu, Vannier and Hsieh teach the electronic device of claim 11 (see above rejection), wherein the first layer includes a pixel definition layer (PDL) defining the sub- pixels, and wherein the black matrix is disposed over a portion of the PDL defining sub- pixels positioned in the areas included in the first set and is not disposed over another portion of the PDL defining sub-pixels positioned in the areas included in the second set. (see Hsieh at least [0047] “the display 100 shows a black privacy screen 312 within the area 310 that was selected”; [0048] “the display 100 may allow for a selective privacy mode where portions of the display 100 may be selected to enable the black privacy screen.”; [0053] “The pixel electrodes of a polymer dispersed liquid crystal (PDLC) layer that correspond to the area of the display that is selected may be determined.”).
As to claim 13, the combination of Ryu, Vannier and Hsieh teach the electronic device of claim 12 (see above rejection), wherein a width of a sub-pixel defined by the PDL and positioned in the areas included in the first set is substantially the same as a width of a sub-pixel defined by the PDL and positioned in the areas included in the second set (see Hsieh at least [0020] “Any person who attempts to view the selected area at a viewing angle greater than 30 degrees may not see the content within the user selected area that has the privacy mode enabled”; [0021] “the remaining PDLCs 120 that do not receive a voltage from the respective pixel electrodes 118 may be oriented to scatter the light from the collimated BLU 102. As a result, the remaining portion of the display 100 may be seen at wider angles. Thus, the pixel electrodes 118 may allow the privacy mode to be enabled for selective portions of the display 100 rather than the entire display 100”; [0034] “The controller 148 may determine which PDLCs 120 are associated with, or located within, the area of the display 100 that is selected. The controller 148 may then activate the pixel electrodes 118 that are associated with the PDLCs 120 within the area of the display 100”; [0045] “the controller 148 may identify the PDLCs 120 that are associated with the area 310. The controller 148 may then apply a voltage to the PDLCs 120 in the area 310 with the respective pixel electrodes 118”; [0054] “the light emitted from the LEDs and/or light guide plate below the area of the display that is selected may have a narrow viewing angle.”; [0056] “the remaining pixel electrodes that do not receive a voltage may be oriented to scatter light. … such that the light may be seen at wider angles.”).
As to claim 15, the combination of Ryu, Vannier and Hsieh teach the electronic device of claim 14 (see above rejection), wherein the memory stores instructions to cause the at least one processor to: perform a first identification of positions of layers of the image and a second identification of at least one layer of the image to which the display function is to be applied; and based on the first and second identifications, identify the first pixels (see Vannier col. 9 lines 56-59 “Memory 226 illustrates an example of computer readable storage media (devices) for storage of information such as computer readable instructions”; col. 10 lines 51-53 “Applications 214 may include computer executable instructions which, when executed by client device 200, transmit, receive, and/or otherwise process network data”; col. 21 lines 48-52 “These program instructions may be provided to a processor to produce a machine, such that the instructions, which execute on the processor, create means for implementing the actions specified in the flowchart block or blocks.”).
As to claim 16, the combination of Ryu, Vannier and Hsieh teach the electronic device of claim 15 (see above rejection), wherein the memory stores instructions to cause the at least one processor to: perform a third identification of stacking order of the layers; and based on the first, second, and third identifications, identify the first pixels (see Vannier col. 2 lines 48-50 “content layers may be in a z-order stack, where each layer is at a different z-order position”; col. 14 lines 18-20 “the plurality of content layers may be in a z-order stack, where each layer may have a different z-order position in the z-order stack”; col. 16 lines 9-13 “determining the layers that are overlapped by the secure content may be based on a z-order position of each of the plurality of content layers and/or an area of each of the overlapped content layers”; col. 18 lines 47-48 “a content layer may be selected based on z-order position of the content layer in the z-order stack”; col. 18 line 67 – col. 19 line 3 “determining whether the selected layer is below the theoretical secure content layer may be based on a comparison of a z-order position of the selected layer and the theoretical z-order position.”).
As to claim 17, the combination of Ryu, Vannier and Hsieh teach the electronic device of claim 16 (see above rejection), wherein the memory stores instructions to cause the at least one processor to: perform a fourth identification of a radius of curvature of corners of each of the layers; and based on the first, second, third, and fourth identifications, identify the first pixels (see Hsieh at least [0033] “the selected area may be dynamic. For example, the user may draw an area on the display 100 to enable the partial display privacy mode. For example, the user may draw a box, a circle, a freeform shape, and the like, around text, an image, or any other image on the display 100 to enable the partial display privacy mode.”; [0044] “Although the area 310 is shown as rectangle, it should be noted that the area 310 may be any geometric shape such as a square, a circle, an oval, any numbered side polygon (e.g., a pentagon, a hexagon, and the like), and so forth.”; [0052] “the selection area may be a geometric shape. For example, a square, a rectangle, a circle”).
As to claim 18, the combination of Ryu, Vannier and Hsieh teach the electronic device of claim 14 (see above rejection), wherein the first and second layers are displayed opaquely (see Vannier at least col. 3 lines 33-35 “the secure content (or a portion thereof) may not be displayed to a user if an opaque layer (e.g., an advertisement) overlaps the secure content (or a portion thereof)”; col. 19 lines 47-55 “a pixel may include a color of the pixel and an opaque/transparency indicator. … the opaque/transparency indicator may be the alpha channel with a value between 0 and 1, where 0 indicates that the pixel is transparent … and a 1 indicates that the pixel is opaque.” – note selection of an opaque layer represents a conventional implementation choice according to the graphical content intended to be displayed).
As to claim 19, the combination of Ryu, Vannier and Hsieh teach the electronic device of claim 14 (see above rejection), wherein the memory stores instructions to cause the at least one processor to: obtain another image to be displayed via the display area of the display (see Ryu at least [0034] “generating updated displays of the graphical user-interface in the CPU 403”; [0035] “The resulting composited display frame is sent to the display screen 413”; [0036] “steps 501-513 may be repeated continuously throughout an operation of a computing device.”);
in response to the display function being applied to a fifth layer of the other image that is positioned below a fourth layer of the other image and overlaps a first portion of the fourth layer, identify second pixels, corresponding to the first portion of the fourth layer and the fifth layer, on which the pixel- processing is to be performed to control a viewing angle; and perform the pixel-processing on the second pixels to apply the display function to the first layer and the second layer (see Vannier col. 14 lines 19-20 “each layer may have a different z-order position in the z-order stack”; col. 14 lines 59-61 “the area of the secure content may overlap at least another area of at least another one of the plurality of content layers”; col. 16 lines 7-9 “determine another area of each content layer that is overlapped by the area of the secure content”; col. 19 lines 21-23“a determination may be made whether the selected pixel is within an area of the secure content” and Hsieh at least [0034], [0045], [0054]: selective viewing-angle processing of the identified area), and
wherein a viewing angle of the first portion of the fourth layer to which the display function is applied and a viewing angle of the fifth layer to which the display function is applied are narrower than a viewing angle of a second portion of the fourth layer not overlapping the second layer (see Hsieh at least [0021] “the remaining portion of the display 100 may be seen at wider angles”; [0056] “the remaining pixel electrodes that do not receive a voltage may be oriented to scatter light … such that the light may be seen at wider angles.” - note the same processing taught for the first multilayer image would have been obvious to apply to a subsequently received multilayer image because Ryu expressly processes successive images and Vannier’s layer/pixel processing is performed dynamically as layers change or are updated).
As to claim 20, the combination of Ryu, Vannier and Hsieh teach the electronic device of claim 19 (see above rejection), wherein the fourth layer is translucent to allow a layer of the other image positioned below the fourth layer to be viewed through at least a portion of the fourth layer (see Vannier col. 3 lines 13-16 “the area of the secure content may be visible in the image through each transparently modified area. The transparency of each overlapped area may be modified to be fully transparent or partially transparent.”; col. 19 lines 51-53 “the opaque/transparency indicator may be the alpha channel with a value between 0 and 1”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 8/18/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER L ZUBAJLO whose telephone number is (571)270-1551. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 10 am - 8 pm.
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.
/JENNIFER L ZUBAJLO/ Examiner, Art Unit 2627 8/31/2026
/KE XIAO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2627
Prosecution Insights