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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/17/2026 has been entered.
Status Of Claims
This Office Action is in response to an amendment received 8/17/2026 in which Applicant lists claims 4-5, 8-9, 13-14, 20 as being cancelled, claims 2-3, 6, 12, 15-18 as being previously presented, and claims 1, 7, 10-11, 19 as being currently amended. It is interpreted by the examiner that claims 1-3, 6-7, 10-12, 15-19 are pending.
If applicant is aware of any relevant prior art, or other co-pending application not already of record, they are reminded of their duty under 37 CFR 1.56 to disclose the same.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that there is no teaching in Sitter for a difference between the first refractivity and the second refractivity being equal to 0.4 (see the remarks, pages 9-11), this argument is not persuasive and is respectfully traversed. Sitter explicitly discloses that a difference between the first refractivity and the second refractivity may be “less than about 0.5” (see at least column 12, line 46 through column 13, line 35). Additionally, Sitter does disclose that the absolute value difference in the refractive index of the materials may be chosen to achieve desired refraction and/or diffraction, and that the index contrast may also be chosen to achieve desired optical effects such as moire reduction (see at least column 12, line 46 through column 13, line 35).
With respect to Applicant’s argument that there is no teaching in Wee for a difference between the first refractivity and the second refractivity being equal to 0.4 (see the remarks, pages 11-13), this argument is not persuasive and is respectfully traversed since the teachings of Wee have been relied upon for teaching that the first outer layer and the second outer layer may have an equal thickness, and have not been relied upon for teaching that a difference between the first refractivity and the second refractivity is equal to 0.4.
Again, applicant is reminded that in section 3 of the Non-Final Office Action mailed 2/5/2026 it was described how Raguin et al., US 2004/0150885 A1 (already of record), discloses a similar optical element/light deflecting structure/diffraction grating wherein a first and second medium have refractive indices which differ by an amount which may be equal to 0.4 (abstract, figs. 1-4, paras. [0009]-[0012], [0045] Table 1); and that Lee et al., US 2020/0033980 A1 (already of record), discloses a similar optical element/light deflecting structure/diffraction grating for use with a display device wherein a first and second medium have refractive indices which differ by an amount which may be equal to 0.4 (title, abstract, figs. 1, 5A-6, paras. [0076], [0141], [0154]); further providing evidence that it is obvious in the optical arts to choose a value for a difference between a first refractivity and a second refractivity that is equal to 0.4 to achieve desired refraction and/or diffraction effects.
Regarding the 112(a) new matter rejections set forth in sections 7-10 of the Final Office Action mailed on 5/19/2026, and set forth again below with respect to the claim language wherein a difference between the first refractivity and the second refractivity is equal to 0.4, applicant argues on page 8 of the remarks that claims 1, 10, 11 and 19 have been amended and requests reconsideration of these rejections. Applicant has removed the claim limitations wherein the first medium has a first refractivity and the second medium has a second refractivity less than the first refractivity, and therefore the 112(a) rejections drawn to this limitation is now moot. However, regarding the 112(a) rejections drawn to the limitation wherein a difference between the first refractivity and the second refractivity is equal to 0.4, applicant’s argument is not persuasive and is respectfully traversed. Claims 1, 10, 11 and 19 are all drawn to an embodiment, such as that shown in figure 4, wherein the optical element includes a first medium (412) with a second medium (413) on the first medium, a curved light deflecting structure/interface (415) between the first medium and the second medium, wherein the light deflecting structure is a diffraction grating, a first outer layer (411) disposed on a display, a second outer layer (414) disposed on the second medium, wherein the first outer layer has a thickness equal to that of the second outer layer, and wherein a difference between the first refractivity and the second refractivity is equal to 0.4 (It is noted that claim 10 appears to have been improperly amended to no longer include the “0.4”, but has been interpreted as including such.). However, applicant has not shown where the original disclosure enables such a specific embodiment having all of the specifically claimed structure wherein a difference between the first refractivity and the second refractivity is equal to 0.4, and there does not appear to be any disclosure discussing wherein a difference between the first refractivity and the second refractivity being equal to 0.4 was an inventive feature in an embodiment contemplated by the inventor at the time the application was filed.
Regarding the amendments to the dependency of claim 7, this amendment is accepted. The rejections of claim 7, made under 35 USC 112(b) and 112(d), and cited in the office action mailed 5/19/2026 are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 10-12, 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 10, 11 and 19 introduce claim limitations wherein “a difference between the first refractivity and the second refractivity is equal to 0.4”. Paragraph [0031] of the original disclosure states that the first refractivity may be in the range of 1.2 to 1.8 and the second refractivity may be in the range of 1.4 to 2. Additionally, at least specification paragraph [0031] states that the first refractivity of the first medium is different from the second refractivity of the second medium. The original disclosure does not provide any specific values for the difference between the first refractivity and the second refractivity being 0.4. Claims 1, 10, 11 and 19 are all drawn to an embodiment, such as that shown in figure 4, wherein the optical element includes a first medium (412) with a second medium (413) on the first medium, a curved light deflecting structure/interface (415) between the first medium and the second medium, wherein the light deflecting structure is a diffraction grating, a first outer layer (411) disposed on a display, a second outer layer (414) disposed on the second medium, wherein the first outer layer has a thickness equal to that of the second outer layer, and wherein a difference between the first refractivity and the second refractivity is equal to 0.4 (It is noted that claim 10 appears to have been improperly amended to no longer include the “0.4”, but has been interpreted as including such.). However, the original disclosure does not appear to provide any specific embodiment having all of the specifically claimed structure wherein a difference between the first refractivity and the second refractivity is equal to 0.4. Paragraph [0031] of the original specification gives examples of the ranges the first and second refractivities may fall into. However, one of ordinary skill in the optical arts would not interpret that disclosure as disclosing a specific embodiment having all of the claimed features wherein a difference between the first refractivity and the second refractivity is equal to 0.4. Therefore, the newly added limitations of claims 1, 10, 11 and 19 were not described in the original disclosure with any specificity so as to indicate to one of ordinary skill in the art the inventor had possession of an embodiment including the claimed specific features wherein “a difference between the first refractivity and the second refractivity is equal to 0.4” at the time the application was filed. Therefore, the claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 2-3, 6, 7, 12, 15-18 are rejected for inheriting the same new matter of the claims from which they depend.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 10 ends in “is equal to” without including a value. Therefore, the scope of claim 10 cannot be determined. For the purpose of this examination it is interpreted that claim 10 is intended to end with “is equal to 0.4”.
Priority
U.S. application 16/827791 filed on 3/24/2020 is the earliest filed application that discloses all of the limitations in newly amended claims 1, 10, 11 and 19 and therefore is the earliest priority date given for the instant application.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the specification does not provide proper antecedent basis for the newly added claim limitations in claims 1, 10, 11 and 19 wherein “a difference between the first refractivity and the second refractivity is equal to 0.4”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 10-12, 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sitter et al., U.S. Patent Number 10,761,320 B2, of record (hereafter Sitter) in view of Wee et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0243042 A1, of record (hereafter Wee).
Regarding claim 11, Sitter discloses an optical element disposed on a light source (see at least figures 2A, 15, 16, 17, element 200, 1500, 1598, 1600 and/or 1700, col. 2, lines 54-62; col. 6, line 1 through col. 7, line 30), wherein the optical element comprises:
a first medium having a first refractivity (see at least figures 2A, 15, 16, 17, at least one of element 210 or 220; element 1510; element 1610; element 1710; col. 1, lines 13-26; col. 11, lines 24 through col. 13, line 35; col. 14, line 37-64);
a second medium formed on the first medium and having a second refractivity (see at least figures 2A, 15, 16, 17, at least one of element 220 or 230; element 1520; element 1620; element 1720; col. 1, lines 13-26; col. 11, lines 24 through col. 13, line 35; col. 14, line 37-64), and
a light deflecting structure formed on an interface between the first medium and the second medium (see at least figures 2A, 15, 16, 17, elements 235, 237, 1635), wherein a light emitted by the light source sequentially passes through the first medium and the second medium (see at least figures 2A, 15, 16, 17);
wherein the light deflecting structure is a diffraction grating (see at least col. 1, lines 13-62; col. 2, lines 54-62; col. 6, line 1 through col. 7, line 30; col. 13, lines 36-63);
and wherein the entire interface between the first medium and the second medium is curved (see at least figures 2A, 15, 16, 17, elements 235, 237, 1635; col. 3, lines 49-67),
and the optical element further comprises:
a first outer layer disposed on a display and located between the first medium and the display (see at least figure 16, element 1633; or figure 17, element 1730, and column 7, lines 17-30); and
a second outer layer disposed on the second medium (see at least figure 16, element 1630; or figure 17, element 1733, and column 7, lines 17-30);
wherein the display, the first outer layer, the first medium, the second medium and the second outer layer are disposed in order from bottom to top (see at least figures 16 and 17);
wherein the second refractivity may be less than the first refractivity (see at least column 12, line 46 through column 13, line 35).
Sitter further discloses that a difference between the first refractivity and the second refractivity may be less than 0.5 (see at least column 12, line 46 through column 13, line 35).
Sitter does not explicitly disclose that a difference between the first refractivity and the second refractivity is equal to 0.4, but Sitter does disclose that the absolute value difference in the refractive index of the materials may be chosen to achieve desired refraction and/or diffraction, and that the index contrast may also be chosen to achieve desired optical effects such as moire reduction (see at least column 12, line 46 through column 13, line 35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose a value for a difference between the first refractivity and the second refractivity that is equal to 0.4, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to choose a value for a difference between the first refractivity and the second refractivity that is equal to 0.4, for the purpose of achieving desired refraction and/or diffraction effects, and/or to achieve desired optical effects such as moire reduction (see at least column 12, line 46 through column 13, line 35 of Sitter). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
It has been held that “in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists” (MPEP 2144.05). In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003); In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Additionally, see col. 1, lines 13-62, col. 13, lines 36-52 of Sitter, and paragraph [0024] of the instant application wherein the physical characteristic of the spacing of the optical element overlap; col. 3, lines 17-35, col. 6, lines 1-47, col. 11, line 24 through col. 12, line 45, and col. 14, lines 37-67 of Sitter, and paragraphs [0028]-[0029] of the instant application wherein the physical characteristic of the materials of the optical element are the same; and col. 13, lines 15-35 of Sitter, and paragraph [0031] of the instant application wherein the physical characteristic of the refractive index of the materials of the optical element overlap).
Sitter does not specifically disclose that the first outer layer has a thickness equal to that of the second outer layer.
However, Wee teaches a display device, comprising:
a display configured to display an image (see at least the abstract, and paragraphs [0057] and [0117]-[0118] of Wee); and
an optical element disposed on the display (see at least the abstract and figures 1-4, element 200, 200A and/or 200B, and paragraphs [0116]-[0118] of Wee),
an optical element disposed on a light source configured to emit light (see at least the abstract and figures 1-4, element 200, 200A and/or 200B, and paragraphs [0057] and [0117]-[0118] of Wee),
wherein the optical element comprises:
a first medium having a first refractivity (see at least figure 2, element 220, and paragraphs [0061]-[0066], [0077]-[0078] of Wee);
a second medium formed on the first medium and having a second refractivity (see at least figure 2, element 210, and paragraphs [0061]-[0066], [0077]-[0078] of Wee); and
a light deflecting structure formed on an interface between the first medium and the second medium (see at least figure 2, element 211 of Wee);
wherein the light deflecting structure is a diffraction grating (see at least element 200, paragraphs [0057], [0133] of Wee),
wherein the light deflecting structure is a curved interface (see at least figure 3, as well as paragraph [0072] of Wee),
a first outer layer disposed on a display and located between the first medium and the display (see at least element 600 and/or 300, paras. [0061], [0081]-[0084], [0108]-[0115] of Wee); and
a second outer layer disposed on the second medium (see at least element 300 and/or 300 and/or 600, paras. [0061], [0081]-[0084], [0108]-[0115] of Wee);
wherein the first outer layer has a thickness equal to that of the second outer layer (see at least paragraphs [0084], [0114]-[0115] of Wee),
wherein the first medium has a first refractivity, the second medium has a second refractivity (see at least figure 2, elements 210 and 220, and paragraphs [0061]-[0063], [0066], [0078] of Wee).
Wee further discloses that either of the first or second resin layers may have the low refractive index and either of the first or second resin layers may have the high refractive index (Wee para. [0062]).
Further, see paragraphs [0071], [0072], [0075], [0076] of Wee, and paragraph [0024] of the instant application wherein the physical characteristic of the spacing of the optical element overlap, paragraphs [0066], [0078] of Wee, and paragraphs [0028]-[0029] of the instant application wherein the physical characteristic of the materials of the optical element are the same, paragraphs [0062], [0065]-[0066], [0078] of Wee, and paragraph [0031] of the instant application wherein the physical characteristic of the refractive index of the materials of the optical element overlap).
Lastly, Wee further teaches that the differences in refractive index between the first and second mediums, refractive indices of the first and second mediums, pitch and/or width may be chosen such that the display has an increased brightness, improved front and side contrast ratios, and mura is reduced (see at least paragraphs [0007]-[0009], [0019]-[0021], [0023]-[0027], [0057], [0061]-[0071], [0075]-[0078] of Wee).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure of the light deflecting structure/diffraction grating of Sitter to include the teachings of Wee so that the first outer layer has a thickness equal to that of the second outer layer, for the purpose of providing a desired amount of structure and protection to the light deflecting structure of the diffraction grating while having a reasonable expectation for success.
Regarding claims 1, 10, 15, Sitter discloses a display device, comprising:
a display configured to display an image (see at least figures 2A, 15, 16, 17, element 1598, col. 2, lines 54-62; col. 6, line 1 through col. 7, line 30); and
an optical element disposed on the display (see at least figures 2A, 15, 16, 17, element 200, 1500, 1600 and/or 1700),
an optical element disposed on a light source configured to emit light (see at least figures 2A, 15, 16, 17, element 200, 1500, 1600 and/or 1700, col. 2, lines 54-62; col. 6, line 1 through col. 7, line 30),
wherein the optical element comprises:
a first medium having a first refractivity (see at least figures 2A, 15, 16, 17, at least one of element 210 or 220; element 1510; element 1610; element 1710; col. 1, lines 13-26; col. 11, lines 24 through col. 13, line 35; col. 14, line 37-64);
a second medium formed on the first medium and having a second refractivity (see at least figures 2A, 15, 16, 17, at least one of element 220 or 230; element 1520; element 1620; element 1720; col. 1, lines 13-26; col. 11, lines 24 through col. 13, line 35; col. 14, line 37-64); and
a light deflecting structure formed on an interface between the first medium and the second medium (see at least figures 2A, 15, 16, 17, elements 235, 237, 1635);
wherein the light deflecting structure is a diffraction grating (see at least col. 1, lines 13-62; col. 2, lines 54-62; col. 6, line 1 through col. 7, line 30; col. 13, lines 36-63);
and wherein the entire interface between the first medium and the second medium is curved (see at least figures 2A, 15, 16, 17, elements 235, 237, 1635; col. 3, lines 49-67);
and the optical element further comprises:
a first outer layer disposed on a display and located between the first medium and the display (see at least figure 16, element 1633; or figure 17, element 1730, and column 7, lines 17-30); and
a second outer layer disposed on the second medium (see at least figure 16, element 1630; or figure 17, element 1733, and column 7, lines 17-30);
wherein the display, the first outer layer, the first medium, the second medium and the second outer layer are disposed in order from bottom to top (see at least figures 16 and 17);
wherein the second refractivity may be less than the first refractivity (see at least column 12, line 46 through column 13, line 35).
Sitter further discloses that a difference between the first refractivity and the second refractivity may be less than 0.5 (see at least column 12, line 46 through column 13, line 35).
Sitter does not explicitly disclose that a difference between the first refractivity and the second refractivity is equal to 0.4, but Sitter does disclose that the absolute value difference in the refractive index of the materials may be chosen to achieve desired refraction and/or diffraction, and that the index contrast may also be chosen to achieve desired optical effects such as moire reduction (see at least column 12, line 46 through column 13, line 35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose a value for a difference between the first refractivity and the second refractivity that is equal to 0.4, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to choose a value for a difference between the first refractivity and the second refractivity that is equal to 0.4, for the purpose of achieving desired refraction and/or diffraction effects, and/or to achieve desired optical effects such as moire reduction (see at least column 12, line 46 through column 13, line 35 of Sitter). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
It has been held that “in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists” (MPEP 2144.05). In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003); In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Additionally, see col. 1, lines 13-62, col. 13, lines 36-52 of Sitter, and paragraph [0024] of the instant application wherein the physical characteristic of the spacing of the optical element overlap; col. 3, lines 17-35, col. 6, lines 1-47, col. 11, line 24 through col. 12, line 45, and col. 14, lines 37-67 of Sitter, and paragraphs [0028]-[0029] of the instant application wherein the physical characteristic of the materials of the optical element are the same; and col. 13, lines 15-35 of Sitter, and paragraph [0031] of the instant application wherein the physical characteristic of the refractive index of the materials of the optical element overlap).
Sitter does not explicitly disclose that the relationship between the optical element and the light satisfies the following formula (1):
0.02 < |WB – WA| / Wref < 2.64 …..(1)
wherein WA is an image broadening width obtained when the light passes through the optical element with the first medium as the light incident side; WB is an image broadening width obtained when the light passes through the optical element with the second medium as the light incident side; and Wref is a width obtained when the light does not pass through the optical element.
However, it is noted that in product and apparatus claims, when the structure and composition recited in the reference(s) is substantially identical to that of the claim(s), claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent, see M.P.E.P. 2112.01. As the structure and materials provided by Sitter are the same as that recited in the claim(s), then it is expected that the optical element of Sitter would have the same results as claimed, and must inherently perform the same function. Since where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipated or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)). For example, though not set forth in the claims, the disclosed materials and size of the physical structure of the optical element/light deflecting structure/diffraction grating of the instant application are the same as, or overlap with, the materials and size of the physical structure of the optical element/light deflecting structure/diffraction grating of Sitter (see col. 1, lines 13-62, col. 13, lines 36-52 of Sitter, and paragraph [0024] of the instant application wherein the physical characteristic of the spacing of the optical element overlap; col. 3, lines 17-35, col. 6, lines 1-47, col. 11, line 24 through col. 12, line 45, and col. 14, lines 37-67 of Sitter, and paragraphs [0028]-[0029] of the instant application wherein the physical characteristic of the materials of the optical element are the same; and col. 13, lines 15-35 of Sitter, and paragraph [0031] of the instant application wherein the physical characteristic of the refractive index of the materials of the optical element overlap). The result of the structure of Sitter would be a non-zero difference of |WB – WA|, and therefore would very likely satisfy formula (1) by being between 0.02 and 2.64.
Again, it has been held that “in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists” (MPEP 2144.05). In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003); In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Furthermore, while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (The absence of a disclosure in a prior art reference relating to function did not defeat the Board’s finding of anticipation of claimed apparatus because the limitations at issue were found to be inherent in the prior art reference); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2114. Specifically, the claim does not provide any structural features of the light deflecting structure which would distinguish the claim from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Additionally, the disclosure of Sitter, as set forth in the citations above, being substantially identical to the disclosed process and/or material structure set forth in the specification (see at least paragraphs [0006]-[0009] of the specification for the instant application) would intrinsically result in satisfying formula (1). It has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical, or substantially identical, in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Sitter further teaches that the differences in refractive index between the first and second mediums, refractive indices of the first and second mediums, pitch and/or peak to valley height may be chosen to achieve desired diffraction and/or refraction such that unwanted moire patterns are reduced (see at least col. 1, lines 13-62; col. 3, line 1 through col. 4, line 47; col. 12, line 46 through col. 13, line 63).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to choose desired characteristics for the light deflecting structure, such that formula (1) is satisfied, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to satisfy formula (1) for the purpose of achieving a desired front luminance and/or viewing angle for a light source/display for a particular application. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Sitter does not specifically disclose that the first outer layer has a thickness equal to that of the second outer layer.
However, Wee teaches a display device, comprising:
a display configured to display an image (see at least the abstract, and paragraphs [0057] and [0117]-[0118] of Wee); and
an optical element disposed on the display (see at least the abstract and figures 1-4, element 200, 200A and/or 200B, and paragraphs [0116]-[0118] of Wee),
an optical element disposed on a light source configured to emit light (see at least the abstract and figures 1-4, element 200, 200A and/or 200B, and paragraphs [0057] and [0117]-[0118] of Wee),
wherein the optical element comprises:
a first medium having a first refractivity (see at least figure 2, element 220, and paragraphs [0061]-[0066], [0077]-[0078] of Wee);
a second medium formed on the first medium and having a second refractivity (see at least figure 2, element 210, and paragraphs [0061]-[0066], [0077]-[0078] of Wee); and
a light deflecting structure formed on an interface between the first medium and the second medium (see at least figure 2, element 211 of Wee);
wherein the light deflecting structure is a diffraction grating (see at least element 200, paragraphs [0057], [0133] of Wee),
wherein the light deflecting structure is a curved interface (see at least figure 3, as well as paragraph [0072] of Wee),
a first outer layer disposed on a display and located between the first medium and the display (see at least element 600 and/or 300, paras. [0061], [0081]-[0084], [0108]-[0115] of Wee); and
a second outer layer disposed on the second medium (see at least element 300 and/or 300 and/or 600, paras. [0061], [0081]-[0084], [0108]-[0115] of Wee);
wherein the first outer layer has a thickness equal to that of the second outer layer (see at least paragraphs [0084], [0114]-[0115] of Wee),
wherein the first medium has a first refractivity, the second medium has a second refractivity (see at least figure 2, elements 210 and 220, and paragraphs [0061]-[0063], [0066], [0078] of Wee).
Wee further discloses that either of the first or second resin layers may have the low refractive index and either of the first or second resin layers may have the high refractive index (Wee para. [0062]).
Further, see paragraphs [0071], [0072], [0075], [0076] of Wee, and paragraph [0024] of the instant application wherein the physical characteristic of the spacing of the optical element overlap, paragraphs [0066], [0078] of Wee, and paragraphs [0028]-[0029] of the instant application wherein the physical characteristic of the materials of the optical element are the same, paragraphs [0062], [0065]-[0066], [0078] of Wee, and paragraph [0031] of the instant application wherein the physical characteristic of the refractive index of the materials of the optical element overlap).
Lastly, Wee further teaches that the differences in refractive index between the first and second mediums, refractive indices of the first and second mediums, pitch and/or width may be chosen such that the display has an increased brightness, improved front and side contrast ratios, and mura is reduced (see at least paragraphs [0007]-[0009], [0019]-[0021], [0023]-[0027], [0057], [0061]-[0071], [0075]-[0078] of Wee).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure of the light deflecting structure/diffraction grating of Sitter to include the teachings of Wee so that the first outer layer has a thickness equal to that of the second outer layer, for the purpose of providing a desired amount of structure and protection to the light deflecting structure of the diffraction grating while having a reasonable expectation for success.
Regarding claims 2, 3, 16 and 17, Sitter in view of Wee does not specifically disclose 1.39 ≤ WA / Wref ≤ 2.28; or 1.46 ≤ WB / Wref ≤ 4.92.
However, it is noted that in product and apparatus claims, when the structure and composition recited in the reference(s) is substantially identical to that of the claim(s), claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent, see M.P.E.P. 2112.01. As the structure and materials provided by Sitter are the same as that recited in the claim(s), then it is expected that the optical element of Sitter would have the same results as claimed, and must inherently perform the same function. Since where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipated or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)).
Furthermore, while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (The absence of a disclosure in a prior art reference relating to function did not defeat the Board’s finding of anticipation of claimed apparatus because the limitations at issue were found to be inherent in the prior art reference); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2114. Specifically, the claim does not provide any structural features of the light deflecting structure which would distinguish the claim from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Sitter further teaches that the differences in refractive index between the first and second mediums, refractive indices of the first and second mediums, pitch and/or peak to valley height may be chosen to achieve desired diffraction and/or refraction such that unwanted moire patterns are reduced (see at least col. 1, lines 13-62; col. 3, line 1 through col. 4, line 47; col. 12, line 46 through col. 13, line 63).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to choose desired characteristics for the light deflecting structure, such that 1.39 ≤ WA / Wref ≤ 2.28; and/or 1.46 ≤ WB / Wref ≤ 4.92, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to choose desired characteristics for the light deflecting structure such that 1.39 ≤ WA / Wref ≤ 2.28; and/or 1.46 ≤ WB / Wref ≤ 4.92, for the purpose of achieving a desired front luminance and/or viewing angle for a light source/display for a particular application. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Regarding claim 6, Sitter in view of Wee discloses that the light deflecting structure has at least a gradient spacing in a range of 0.3µm to 50µm (see col. 1, lines 13-62, col. 13, lines 36-52 of Sitter).
It has been held that “in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists” (MPEP 2144.05). In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003); In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Sitter in view of Wee does not specifically disclose 0.99 < WB/WA < 2.16.
However, it is noted that in product and apparatus claims, when the structure and composition recited in the reference(s) is substantially identical to that of the claim(s), claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent, see M.P.E.P. 2112.01. As the structure and materials provided by Sitter are the same as that recited in the claim(s), then it is expected that the optical element of Sitter would have the same results as claimed, and must inherently perform the same function. Since where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipated or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)).
Furthermore, while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (The absence of a disclosure in a prior art reference relating to function did not defeat the Board’s finding of anticipation of claimed apparatus because the limitations at issue were found to be inherent in the prior art reference); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2114. Specifically, the claim does not provide any structural features of the light deflecting structure which would distinguish the claim from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Sitter further teaches that the differences in refractive index between the first and second mediums, refractive indices of the first and second mediums, pitch and/or peak to valley height may be chosen to achieve desired diffraction and/or refraction such that unwanted moire patterns are reduced (see at least col. 1, lines 13-62; col. 3, line 1 through col. 4, line 47; col. 12, line 46 through col. 13, line 63).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to choose desired characteristics for the light deflecting structure, such that 0.99 < WB/WA < 2.16, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to choose desired characteristics for the light deflecting structure such that 0.99 < WB/WA < 2.16, for the purpose of achieving a desired front luminance and/or viewing angle for a light source/display for a particular application. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Regarding claim 12, Sitter in view of Wee discloses that the light deflecting structure has at least a gradient spacing in a range of 0.3µm to 50µm (see col. 1, lines 13-62, col. 13, lines 36-52 of Sitter).
It has been held that “in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists” (MPEP 2144.05). In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003); In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Regarding claim 19, Sitter discloses a display device, comprising:
a display configured to display an image (see at least figures 2A, 15, 16, 17, element 1598, col. 2, lines 54-62; col. 6, line 1 through col. 7, line 30); and
an optical element disposed on the display (see at least figures 2A, 15, 16, 17, element 200, 1500, 1600 and/or 1700, col. 2, lines 54-62; col. 6, line 1 through col. 7, line 30), wherein the optical element comprises:
a first medium having a first refractivity (see at least figures 2A, 15, 16, 17, at least one of element 210 or 220; element 1510; element 1610; element 1710; col. 1, lines 13-26; col. 11, lines 24 through col. 13, line 35; col. 14, line 37-64);
a second medium formed on the first medium and having a second refractivity (see at least figures 2A, 15, 16, 17, at least one of element 220 or 230; element 1520; element 1620; element 1720; col. 1, lines 13-26; col. 11, lines 24 through col. 13, line 35; col. 14, line 37-64); and an interface between the first medium and the second medium comprises a light deflecting structure (see at least figures 2A, 15, 16, 17, elements 235, 237, 1635), wherein a light for forming the image sequentially passes through the first medium and the second medium (see at least figures 2A, 15, 16, 17);
wherein the light deflecting structure is a diffraction grating (see at least col. 1, lines 13-62; col. 2, lines 54-62; col. 6, line 1 through col. 7, line 30; col. 13, lines 36-63);
and wherein the entire interface between the first medium and the second medium is curved (see at least figures 2A, 15, 16, 17, elements 235, 237, 1635; col. 3, lines 49-67); and
and the optical element further comprises:
a first outer layer disposed on a display and located between the first medium and the display (see at least figure 16, element 1633; or figure 17, element 1730, and column 7, lines 17-30); and
a second outer layer disposed on the second medium (see at least figure 16, element 1630; or figure 17, element 1733, and column 7, lines 17-30);
wherein the display, the first outer layer, the first medium, the second medium and the second outer layer are disposed in order from bottom to top (see at least figures 16 and 17);
wherein the second refractivity may be less than the first refractivity (see at least column 12, line 46 through column 13, line 35).
Sitter further discloses that a difference between the first refractivity and the second refractivity may be less than 0.5 (see at least column 12, line 46 through column 13, line 35).
Sitter does not explicitly disclose that a difference between the first refractivity and the second refractivity is equal to 0.4, but Sitter does disclose that the absolute value difference in the refractive index of the materials may be chosen to achieve desired refraction and/or diffraction, and that the index contrast may also be chosen to achieve desired optical effects such as moire reduction (see at least column 12, line 46 through column 13, line 35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose a value for a difference between the first refractivity and the second refractivity that is equal to 0.4, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to choose a value for a difference between the first refractivity and the second refractivity that is equal to 0.4, for the purpose of achieving desired refraction and/or diffraction effects, and/or to achieve desired optical effects such as moire reduction (see at least column 12, line 46 through column 13, line 35 of Sitter). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
It has been held that “in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists” (MPEP 2144.05). In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003); In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Additionally, see col. 1, lines 13-62, col. 13, lines 36-52 of Sitter, and paragraph [0024] of the instant application wherein the physical characteristic of the spacing of the optical element overlap; col. 3, lines 17-35, col. 6, lines 1-47, col. 11, line 24 through col. 12, line 45, and col. 14, lines 37-67 of Sitter, and paragraphs [0028]-[0029] of the instant application wherein the physical characteristic of the materials of the optical element are the same; and col. 13, lines 15-35 of Sitter, and paragraph [0031] of the instant application wherein the physical characteristic of the refractive index of the materials of the optical element overlap).
Sitter does not specifically disclose that the first outer layer has a thickness equal to that of the second outer layer.
However, Wee teaches a display device, comprising:
a display configured to display an image (see at least the abstract, and paragraphs [0057] and [0117]-[0118] of Wee); and
an optical element disposed on the display (see at least the abstract and figures 1-4, element 200, 200A and/or 200B, and paragraphs [0116]-[0118] of Wee),
an optical element disposed on a light source configured to emit light (see at least the abstract and figures 1-4, element 200, 200A and/or 200B, and paragraphs [0057] and [0117]-[0118] of Wee),
wherein the optical element comprises:
a first medium having a first refractivity (see at least figure 2, element 220, and paragraphs [0061]-[0066], [0077]-[0078] of Wee);
a second medium formed on the first medium and having a second refractivity (see at least figure 2, element 210, and paragraphs [0061]-[0066], [0077]-[0078] of Wee); and
a light deflecting structure formed on an interface between the first medium and the second medium (see at least figure 2, element 211 of Wee);
wherein the light deflecting structure is a diffraction grating (see at least element 200, paragraphs [0057], [0133] of Wee),
wherein the light deflecting structure is a curved interface (see at least figure 3, as well as paragraph [0072] of Wee),
a first outer layer disposed on a display and located between the first medium and the display (see at least element 600 and/or 300, paras. [0061], [0081]-[0084], [0108]-[0115] of Wee); and
a second outer layer disposed on the second medium (see at least element 300 and/or 300 and/or 600, paras. [0061], [0081]-[0084], [0108]-[0115] of Wee);
wherein the first outer layer has a thickness equal to that of the second outer layer (see at least paragraphs [0084], [0114]-[0115] of Wee),
wherein the first medium has a first refractivity, the second medium has a second refractivity (see at least figure 2, elements 210 and 220, and paragraphs [0061]-[0063], [0066], [0078] of Wee).
Wee further discloses that either of the first or second resin layers may have the low refractive index and either of the first or second resin layers may have the high refractive index (Wee para. [0062]).
Further, see paragraphs [0071], [0072], [0075], [0076] of Wee, and paragraph [0024] of the instant application wherein the physical characteristic of the spacing of the optical element overlap, paragraphs [0066], [0078] of Wee, and paragraphs [0028]-[0029] of the instant application wherein the physical characteristic of the materials of the optical element are the same, paragraphs [0062], [0065]-[0066], [0078] of Wee, and paragraph [0031] of the instant application wherein the physical characteristic of the refractive index of the materials of the optical element overlap).
Lastly, Wee further teaches that the differences in refractive index between the first and second mediums, refractive indices of the first and second mediums, pitch and/or width may be chosen such that the display has an increased brightness, improved front and side contrast ratios, and mura is reduced (see at least paragraphs [0007]-[0009], [0019]-[0021], [0023]-[0027], [0057], [0061]-[0071], [0075]-[0078] of Wee).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure of the light deflecting structure/diffraction grating of Sitter to include the teachings of Wee so that the first outer layer has a thickness equal to that of the second outer layer, for the purpose of providing a desired amount of structure and protection to the light deflecting structure of the diffraction grating while having a reasonable expectation for success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEREK S. CHAPEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8042. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6pm.
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, Stephone B. Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/Derek S. Chapel/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 9/3/2026
Derek S. CHAPEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights