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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/27/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Received 03/27/2026
Claim(s) 1-24 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 21-24 has/have been add.
The 35 U.S.C § 103 rejection to claim(s) 1-24 have been fully considered in view of the amendments received on 03/27/2026 and are fully addressed in the prior art rejection below.
Response to Arguments
Received 03/27/2026
Regarding dependent claim(s) 10-13:
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, Page 16: ¶ 2 to Page 17: ¶ 5), filed 03/27/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 10-13 under 35 U.S.C § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Wherein, Applicant’s arguments further narrows the subject matter of the “pulsed laser”, The interpretation under (MPEP; [2111]) of the pulsed laser was regarding the movement of light from a source as a wave which embodies a pulsing nature, however Applicant arguments are directed toward a device. Applicant should note that lighting sources within a display are configured to modulated on and off in order produce visualization effects (as example black pixels are off). Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn, necessitated by Applicant's amendments. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Smithwick in view of Last, in view of Zhong, in view of Lewis et al. (US Patent No. 3829838), in view of Makinen, and further in view of Koethler et al.
Applicant's arguments filed 03/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, as expressed below.
Regarding independent and dependent claim(s) 1-6, 8, 11, 14, 16-18, and 20:
Applicant argues (Remarks, Page 10, ¶ 2), “… that because Smithwick teaches a photochromic display, it therefore teaches a photosensitive display. This is incorrect, as photosensitive chemical compounds are not necessarily understood as photochromic in the photochemical art; a photosensitive compound is one that is ‘sensitive to the action of radiant energy’ and a photosensitizer compound is defined in the photochemical arts to mean a light-absorbing compound that alters the course of a photochemical reaction by transferring absorbed energy into neighboring molecules and then returning to its initial state (see Oleinick, Tributsch, and Wikipedia) while a photochromic compound is ‘capable of changing color on exposure to radiant energy’, i.e. a chemical compound that reversibly changes color upon exposure to light. (see Merriam-Webster, Science Direct, attached definitions of photosensitive and photochromic respectively). A person of ordinary skill in the photochemical arts would not therefore regard photosensitive/photosensitizing compounds and photochromic compounds as being the same type of compounds.”
The Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s arguments fail to view the broad definition of the photochromic compound in light of the specification (Spec.; wherein the photochromic compound corresponds to derivatives [¶ 0028]). Thus, the photochromic compound as claimed by Applicant is broad in a manner that allows the teachings the prior art in combination to address the claimed subject matter. Furthermore, Applicant fails to view the lack of connection between the subject matter of the photochromic compound and the voxel(s) associated with color changes.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments above fail to be persuasive.
Applicant argues (Remarks, Page 10, ¶ 3 to Page 11, ¶ 1), that “… Last teaches using UV light to stimulate phosphors (Abstract, para. 0024) where a phosphor is a solid material that emits light, or luminesces, when exposed to radiation (Britannica and Wikipedia). A phosphor (emitting light when exposed to radiation) is therefore not a photochromic compound (changing color when exposed to light} or a photosensitizing compound (does not transfer absorbed energy into neighboring molecules). Therefore, Last is not in the same field of endeavor as Smithwick or Zhong, as the irradiated chemical compounds have very different properties (emitting light upon irradiation versus changing color upon irradiation). The proposed combination of references by the Examiner is hindsight reasoning and a person of ordinary skill in the art would not look to Last to cure the deficiencies of Smithwick or Zhong.”
The Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s arguments fail to view the combination of prior art as a whole, wherein Last et al. (US PGPUB No. 20170357099 A1) utilize and preform the function of projecting media to a screen. In other words, Last et al. is analogous with Smithwick and Zhong et al., given that all three items of prior art teach light/projection manipulation for a surface/screen to control pixelation/graphics. Applicant’s arguments infer that a display can only use one method/technique in order to generate the actuation of pixels or rendering, however the Examiner reminds Applicant that within the holographic and/or three-dimensional volume rendering domain, a display system often relies on several methods/techniques (in combination) in order to achieve a visualization (Spec.; [¶ 0043]). Additionally, Smithwick is motivated to combine with Last et al., in order to provide the ultraviolet light (of Smithwick) in a manner that mitigates issues for a viewer (Last; [¶ 0030]). In other words, Smithwick and Zhong et al. teach display systems that would benefit from being able to in improve view quality for a user by compensating for UV light by being responsive to the UV light by adjusting the color of a visualization to a user.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments above fail to be persuasive.
Applicant argues (Remarks, Page 11, ¶ 2), that “Zhong teaches a method of making a display device containing liquid crystals, where the method comprises manufacturing a liquid crystal display device by applying UV light to a mixture of polymerizable monomers, liquid crystal drops, and photoinitiator (para. 0023-0036,0061-0062 and claims 15-16) to form a permanent device comprising polymer containing liquid crystal drops (para. 0063-0065, 0075-0076 and claims 15-16). A photoinitiator compound absorbs light to become a reactive species (e.g. radical or ion) which then reacts with another chemical species. (Britannica, Science Direct, Wikipedia) A photoinitiator compound is not a photosensitizer compound or a photochromic compound. The irradiated chemical compounds of Zhong, Smithwick, and Last have very different properties (namely, creating radicals/ions upon irradiation versus changing color upon irradiation versus emitting light upon irradiation). Zhong’s method uses UV irradiation to make the device and does not use UV light to operate the device. (para. 0023-0036,0061-0062, 0075-0076 and claims 15-16) The Office Action also mischaracterizes the shift from transparency to clear of the liquid crystal as being triggered by UV light, when in fact, the transparency change of the liquid crystal molecules is due to application of an electrical field within the liquid crystal panel (Zhong para. 0059-0060 and 0063-0065). Therefore, Zhong is not in the same field of endeavor as Smithwick or Last.”
The Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s arguments fail to view the lack of connection between the subject matter of the photochromic compound and the voxel(s) associated with color changes. Such that, Zhong et al. teaches reacting to lighting conditions by changing color. Although, said reaction within Zhong et al. is silent regarding voxel(s) comprising photochromic compound as inferred by Applicant, it is silent within the claim language that the voxel comprises the photochromic compound (Spec. [¶ 0028]; wherein, the voxels “may contain” photochromic compounds [¶ 0004]).
Additionally, Applicant fails to view that Smithwick teaches a multiple surface multiple light projection system that relies on a photosentive pixels associated with a three-dimensional display which would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art to require more than a single means to respond to lighting affecting a visualization (e.g. ambient, artificial, and/or natural light affecting colors and textures), to have more than one mode/setting in which a user could experience a visualization (e.g. 2D mode, 3D mode, dynamic mode, standard mode, energy-saving mode), and/or comprise multiple display layers/panels that are focused on controlling/manipulating light for different purposes (Smithwick; [¶ 0004, ¶ 0032-0033, and ¶ 0055-0057]).
Still further, Smithwick (in view of Last et al.) is motivated to combine with Zhong et al., in order to provide the light utilization associated with a surface (of Smithwick in view of Last et al.) to be increased by way of fast response speed, heigh contrast, and high light transmittance (Zhong; [¶ 0006 and ¶ 0008-0010]). In other words, Smithwick, Last et al., and Zhong et al. teach display systems that would benefit from being able to in improve a display’s/surface’s ability to respond to forms of light in relation with producing a visualization.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments above fail to be persuasive.
Applicant argues (Remarks, Page 11, ¶ 3 to Page 12, ¶ 1), “The combination of Smithwick, Last, and Zhong is therefore not proper, as the proposed modification (treating the photochromic compounds of Smithwick, the phosphors of Last, and the photoinitiators of Zhong as equivalent, and combining Zhong’s method of forming a device with photoinitiator compounds and UV irradiation versus Smithwick’s method of using UV irradiation to trigger photochromic reactions in a device, or Last’s method of using UV irradiation to trigger luminescence in a device) would render the prior art unsatisfactory for its intended purpose as the irradiation of the screen in each reference performs very different chemical reactions with different purposes (making screens change color in Smithwick versus making phosphors glow in Last versus making monomers polymerize to form a screen in Zhong), and would change the principles of operation of the references. See MPEP 2143.01.V and VI; In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 221 USPQ 1125 (Fed. Cir. 1984) and In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 813, 123 USPQ 349, 352 (CCPA 1959).”
The Examiner disagrees. Wherein, Applicant fails to view the dynamic viewing options as desired by Smithwick (Smithwick; [¶ 0004, ¶ 0032-0033, and ¶ 0055-0057]; moreover, “The mask may locally and selectively change from transparent to opaque (or vice versa) using projected light via photochemical, a combination of photoelectric to electrochemical, a combination of photoelectric to electro-optic, or a combination of photoelectric to electro-mechanical to mechano-optical processes” [¶ 0056]). Moreover, a display that is responsive to different forms of light in order to control or produce a visual effect is not the same as changing the principles of the operation as taught within the references. Applicant may view the combination as less than optimal, however less than optimal is not equivalent to teaching away. Such that, a photochemical (as taught by Smithwick) is able to (directly or indirectly) comprise phosphors (as taught by Last et al.) in order to be light sensitive while being able to control light properties (e.g. chromphores or Yttrium aluminum garnet (YAG:Ce3+, or Y3Al5O12:Ce3+) can be used to allowing LEDs to absorb undesirable blue (UV) light) and control using monomers polymers (as taught by Zhong et al.) in or more layers (given that the display system(s) are multi-layered) in order for light to be reflected, absorbed, passed, and/or refracted (which are commonly used techniques by liquid crystal panels). Such that, Applicant fails to view that the claimed voxel is silent regarding the photochromic compounds.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments above fail to be persuasive.
Regarding dependent claim(s) 3-6, 8, 11, and 16:
Applicant argues (Remarks, Page 12, ¶ 3), that “… claims 3-5, Smithwick does not teach that the photochromic compound of Fig. 4 is associated with the liquid or gel medium (electrowetting medium) of Figs. 6A-C (i.e. the pixels of Figs. 6A-C are not associated with a photochromic compound, as the photochromic compound is in a mask layer/screen and not in an electrowetting display, see para. 0041-0046). Furthermore, Zhong does not teach using photochromic compounds, as Zhong teaches using photoinitiator compounds in liquid or gel medium (photoinitiator in LCD, para. 0055, 0057, 0061-0062) and explicitly teaches that the changes in transparency are due to an electric field applied to the liquid crystal, not the UV irradiation (para. 0059-0060 and 0063-0065). Therefore, the combination of Smithwick, Last, and Zhong does not teach the claimed invention and does not make the claimed invention obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.”
The Examiner disagrees. Wherein, the substance taught within the pixels and the photochromic screen of Smithwick is modified to comprises the liquid crystal compound/substrate mixture of formed from UV light irradiation as taught by Zhong et al.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments above fail to be persuasive.
Applicant argues (Remarks, Page 12, ¶ 4 to Col. 13, ¶ 1), that “… claim 6, Smithwick explicitly teaches that the photochromic material is pixel-free (para. 0018, Fig. 4) which teaches away from the claimed invention that recites photochromic voxel. Therefore, the combination of Smithwick, Last, and Zhong does not teach the claimed invention and does not make the claimed invention obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.”
The Examiner disagrees. Wherein, Fig. 5 corresponding to the electrowetting screen comprises pixels/cells (Smithwick; [¶ 0047]), and wherein Smithwick teaches that “… the projectable mask screen may be provided using a fast photochromic screen … compared to common photochromic material” (Smithwick; [¶ 0018]). Thus, although the mask can involve a fast photochromic material (Smithwick; [¶ 0041 and ¶ 0044-0046]) the projection mask can be pixeled using common photochromic material corresponding to the pixels/cells of the electrowetting (Smithwick; [¶ 0047-0048]). Moreover, “The mask screen and light sensing may be pixelated or pixel-free. The mask may locally and selectively change from transparent to opaque (or vice versa) using projected light via photochemical, a combination of photoelectric to electrochemical, a combination of photoelectric to electro-optic, or a combination of photoelectric to electro-mechanical to mechano-optical processes” (Smithwick; [¶ 0056]).
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments above fail to be persuasive.
Applicant argues (Remarks, Page 13, ¶ 2), that “… claim 8, the Office Action mischaracterizes the teachings of Smithwick, as the photosensor embodiment with pixels of Fig. 5, 6A-C, and 7A-C is different from the pixel-free photochromic embodiment of Fig. 4 (i.e. the pixels of Figs. 6A-C are not associated with a photochromic compound, as the photochromic compound is in a mask layer/screen and not in an electrowetting display, see para. 0041-0046). Furthermore, the only film used in Smithwick is for the tunable or dielectric mirrors used with the photosensor embodiment with pixels (Figs. 7A-C para. 0052) and no film is used with the photochromic embodiment of Fig. 4. Therefore, Smithwick does not teach the claimed element of an asymmetric perforated one-way film. The combination of Smithwick, Last, and Zhong does not teach the claimed invention and does not make the claimed invention obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.”
The Examiner disagrees. Wherein, as addressed above, Fig. 5 corresponding to the electrowetting screen comprises pixels/cells (Smithwick; [¶ 0047]), and wherein Smithwick teaches that “… the projectable mask screen may be provided using a fast photochromic screen … compared to common photochromic material” (Smithwick; [¶ 0018]). Thus, although the mask can involve a fast photochromic material (Smithwick; [¶ 0041 and ¶ 0044-0046]) the projection mask can be pixeled using common photochromic material corresponding to the pixels/cells of the electrowetting (Smithwick; [¶ 0047-0048]). Moreover, “The mask screen and light sensing may be pixelated or pixel-free” (Smithwick; “The mask may locally and selectively change from transparent to opaque (or vice versa) using projected light via photochemical, a combination of photoelectric to electrochemical, a combination of photoelectric to electro-optic, or a combination of photoelectric to electro-mechanical to mechano-optical processes” [¶ 0056]).
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments above fail to be persuasive.
Applicant argues (Remarks, Page 13, ¶ 3 to Page 14, ¶ 1), that “… claims 11 and 16, Smithwick is silent as to whether the laser is a pulsed laser (para. 0036, 0042, 0044-0046). Last is also silent as to whether the laser is a pulsed laser (para. 0027-0028, 0047, 0052, Figs. 3 and 5). Zhong does not teach that the UV light comes from a laser (para. 0061-0062, 0076). The Office Action argues that UV lasers include pulsed UV lasers (pages 17-18). However, “The fact that a claimed species or subgenus is encompassed by a prior art genus is not sufficient by itself to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. /n re Baird, 16 F.3d 380, 382, 29 USPQ2d 1550, 1552 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ("The fact that a claimed compound may be encompassed by a disclosed generic formula does not by itself render that compound obvious."); /n re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 350, 21 USPQ2d 1941, 1943 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (Federal Circuit has "decline[d] to extract from Merck [& Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989)}] the rule that... regardless of how broad, a disclosure of a chemical genus renders obvious any species that happens to fall within it.").” See MPEP 2144.08.IIl. Therefore, the Office Action fails to establish that it would be obvious to use a pulsed laser; the combination of Smithwick, Last, and Zhong does not teach the claimed invention and does not make the claimed invention obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.”
The Examiner disagrees. Wherein, light is a wave which implicitly pulses. Thus, projected light is pulsated light.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments above fail to be persuasive.
Regarding dependent claim(s) 7, 9-13, 15, and 19:
Applicant arguments (Remarks, Page 14, ¶ 2 to Page 17, ¶ 5), can be mainly addressed with the responses provided above.
Aspects of Applicant’s arguments towards claim 7, 9-13, 15, and 19 are tied to the arguments above which have been addressed. If Applicant would prefer a more detailed response to the remaining dependent claims 7, 9, 10-13, 15, and 19, an interview can be scheduled.
Applicant argues (Remarks, Page 14, ¶ 2 to Page 15, ¶ 1), that “… the embodiment of Figs. 5-6C is an electrowetting medium that senses infrared light to change the pixels to be opaque (para. 0048 Figs. 6A-6C), and is not a photochromic medium that is directly responsive to UV light (para. 0047-0051, Figs. 5, 6A-C and 7A-C). Therefore, Smithwick does not teach that the photochromic display matrix is surrounded by at least one surface incorporating at least one UV-absorbing agent/dopant. Furthermore, Adachi is directed to an OLED display device having light emitting compounds/colors doped into the LED at para. 0062, and does not explicitly teach that the light blocking structure of para. 0072-0073 Fig. 4B uses a UVA-absorbing dopant versus an insulating film (para. 0071, where the light leakage prevention structure/bank of para. 0059-0060 is formed from insulating film). Adachi solely teaches using visible light frequencies and filters (white and RGB, para. 0066) and light leakage prevention structures (para.0043) with no mention of UV frequencies of light.”
The Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s arguments fail to view the teachings of the prior art, wherein Smithwick in relation with Fig. 2 (¶ 0034-0036) teaches a display and surface within Fig. 4 (¶ 0044-0046) that are substitutable in relation with the display within Fig. 5 (Smithwick; “… the screen portion of the mask generation screen assembly (such as assembly 221 of FIG. 2) may take the form of an optically addressed electrowetting display 510 as shown in FIG. 5 … and the surface 512 may coincide with or be directly behind/adjacent to the virtual character plane (as shown in FIG. 3) or a display/screen used to display the virtual object (as shown in FIG. 4)” [¶ 0047]). Thus, Applicant fails to view the focus of the teachings are related to a display matrix.
Even further, the surface and display of Fig. 5 (¶ 0047) are configured to comprises cells of Figs. 6A-C (¶ 0048-0050), such that Figs. 6A-C illustrate the one way nature of the cells in relation with the substance (corresponding to a film) (Smithwick; “As the photosensors 526 are likely opaque, the oil 684 may be stored, as shown in FIG. 6C, behind the photosensors 526 when the pixel is transparent. For example, capillary tubes 698 may be provided in the cell/pixel 522 to draw the oil 684 into thin tubes rather than into balls as shown in the embodiment of FIG. 6B when the pixel/cell 522 is transparent. Such an arrangement would ensure maximum, or at least enhance, transparency of the cell 522 when no IR light is sensed. If the projectable mask screen assembly 510 is tuned to detect IR, a separate transparent fluorescent screen may be used to display an image when UV light is projected onto it (as discussed above). The combination of these two screens/displays would provide a glowing virtual character with an opaque mask to block light from the background or from passing through from behind. Although there have been electrowetting displays before, here photosensors are interdigitated to switch the electrowetting cell from transparent to opaque (or vice versa), and the optically addressed electrowetting screen is then used as a mask to be used in conjunction with a reflected, scattered, or emissive color image” [¶ 0051]). Alternatively, the display of Fig. 2 can also use a film as illustrated within Figs. 7A-C (Smithwick; “… screen that may be used in a mask generation screen assembly (such as assembly 221 in FIG. 2 for screen 222) is a tunable mirror screen that is optically addressed. FIGS. 7A-7C illustrate a portion of a tunable mirror mask 710 that may be used for the mask generation screens of the present invention. The mask 710 is shown to include tunable mirrors 712, 714 (e.g., thin film Bragg reflectors such as those distributed by Mirasol ® or other distributors)” [¶ 0052-0053]).
Furthermore, wherein the UVA light is taught within Last et al. (Last; [¶ 0030-0031]); and, wherein Adachi (US PGPUB No. 20150123150 A1) teaches light absorbing dopant (Merriam-Webster; an impurity added usually in minute amounts to a pure substance to alter its properties (such as conductivity) [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dopant]) corresponding to a black matrix and/or transparent substrate (Adachi; “… most of light that leaks between pixels, between which the light leakage prevention structure 44 is formed, changes the traveling direction by the light leakage prevention structure 44, and the light is absorbed by a black matrix 710 formed on the transparent substrate 700, or scatters toward the substrate 6 side, so that light leakage to the adjacent pixel can be suppressed” [¶ 0072]; wherein, “A transparent substrate 700 formed with a color filter and a black matrix, not illustrated, is disposed on the sealing material 600. In the disposition, solid sealing is provided in which a transparent filler 500 made of a polymeric material is filled between the sealing material 600 and the transparent substrate 700 for enclosure. Alternatively, it may be fine that an inert gas such as nitrogen is filled between the sealing material 600 and the transparent substrate 700, and the substrate 6 and the peripheral part of the transparent substrate 700 are enclosed and sealed with a sealing material” [¶ 0064]). Thus, the sealing material may be a film (Adachi; [¶ 0063]), however the black matrix is a part of a substrate (Adachi; [¶ 0064 and ¶ 0072]).
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments above fail to be persuasive.
Applicant argues (Remarks, Page 15, ¶ 2 to Page 16, ¶ 1), that “… the combination of Smithwick, Last and Zhong does not teach the independent claim as described above. Furthermore, Makinen also lacks photochromic material and instead teaches a method and device using LEDs to generate a three-dimensional display (i.e. RGB light-emitting diodes, para. 0055, 0099, 0102, 0115, 0117, 0235). Makinen has a collimator optical assembly (Figs. 25-27 para. 0198, 0212-0217) used for an LED/LCD system or laser diode system (para. 0013 Fig. 6) and does not teach using the collimator optical system on UV light directly (see para. 0232 and 0235) Instead, Makinen teaches collimating light from sub-pixels in white or RGB visual frequencies (para. 0172, 0183, 0218, 0212, 0217) where any UV emission from the pixels is first converted by phosphors into white light (para. 0232, 0235) Applicant holds that therefore, the combination of Smithwick, Last, Zhong, and Makinen does not teach the claimed inventions and does not make the claimed invention obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Regarding claim 19, the combination of Smithwick, Last and Zhong does not teach the independent claim as described above. Furthermore, Makinen teaches a rotatable mirror used with a projection lens and a screen (Abstract) but does not teach using photochromic material …”
The Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s arguments regarding the independent claim are addressed above. Additionally, Applicant’s arguments fail to view the rejection as a whole, wherein Smithwick teaches the photochromic material subject matter. Wherein, Makinen et al. (US PGPUB No. 20200371378 A1) teaches at least one rotating mirror comprises a parabolic mirror (Makinen; [¶ 0099, ¶ 0116, and ¶ 0206-0207]) and at least one axisymmetric collimating optical assembly in relation with a display/projection environment (Makinen; [¶ 0104-0107 and ¶ 0130-0135]). Additionally, Smithwick and Last et al. teaches the UV light subject matter.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments above fail to be persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8, 11, 14, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smithwick, US PGPUB No. 20140333899 A1, hereinafter Smithwick, in view of Last et al., US PGPUB No. 20170357099 A1, hereinafter Last, and further in view of Zhong et al., US PGPUB No. 20160246085 A1, hereinafter Zhong.
Regarding claim 1, Smithwick discloses a device for displaying representations of objects, solids, and surfaces volumetrically in a medium containing one or more photochromic compounds (Smithwick; a device for displaying representations of objects, solids, and surfaces volumetrically/three-dimensionally in a medium (i.e. projectable mask screen) containing one or more photochromic compounds [¶ 0034-0036], as illustrated within Fig. 2; wherein, a projectable mask screen corresponds to photochromic material(s) [¶ 0018-0019, ¶ 0040-0041, and ¶ 0044-0045], as illustrated within Figs. 3 and 4) comprising:
at least one UV light source arranged to project at least one beam of UV radiation and irradiate at least one portion of a display volume incorporating at least one display medium associated with at least one photochromic compound for a predetermined time period (Smithwick; at least one UV light source (i.e. UV or IR projector) arranged to project at least one beam of UV radiation and irradiate at least one portion of a display volume (corresponding to the 3D space (e.g. layering, dimension) that makes up the display region) incorporating at least one display medium (i.e. projectable mask screen) associated with at least one photochromic compound for a predetermined time period (i.e. about 30 ms) [¶ 0018-0019, ¶ 0036, and ¶ 0040-0042], as illustrated within Figs. 2-4),
wherein, the irradiance of the irradiated portion of the at least one display medium and the predetermined time period have been sufficient for at least one clear-to-colored transition of at least one voxel of the at least one display medium from a transparent state to a colored state (Smithwick; the irradiance of the irradiated portion of the at least one display medium (i.e. projectable mask screen) and the predetermined time period (i.e. about 30 ms) have been sufficient/effective for at least one clear-to-colored (i.e. transparent to opaque) transition of at least one voxel (i.e. 3D pixel) of the at least one display medium (i.e. projectable mask screen) from a transparent state to a colored/opaque state [¶ 0033, ¶ 0036-0037, and ¶ 0040-0041]; moreover, the UV strikes the screen and in response a surface of the screen turns from transparent to opaque (i.e. color) [¶ 0040-0041]; additionally, color (i.e. RGB) may be provided along with the virtual object [¶ 0044-0046 and ¶ 0052-0053] within a layer scheme [¶ 0047]), and
wherein, after the predetermined time period after the irradiation, the at least one voxel activated in the colored state spontaneously transitions by a colored-to-clear transition back into the original transparent state (Smithwick; the at least one voxel (i.e. 3D pixel) activated in the colored state spontaneously transitions by a colored-to-clear transition back into the original transparent state the at least one voxel (i.e. 3D pixel) activated in the colored state spontaneously transitions by a colored-to-clear transition back into the original transparent state [¶ 0033, ¶ 0036-0037, and ¶ 0040-0041]; moreover, electrowetting cell configured to go from color to transparent or vice-versa [¶ 0051]; and moreover, color in relation with a mask screen [¶ 0052-0053]).
Smithwick fails to explicitly disclose at least one UVA light source arranged to project at least one beam of UVA radiation; and
a display medium containing at least one photochromic compound.
However, Last teaches at least one UVA light source arranged to project at least one beam of UVA radiation (Last; at least one UVA light source arranged to project at least one beam of UVA radiation [¶ 0030]; moreover, projector [¶ 0041] configured to project at least three separate UV light patterns [¶ 0044] in relation with producing a color effect [¶ 0042-0043]).
Smithwick and Last are considered to be analogous art because both pertain to generating and/or providing media data to a user, wherein light is manipulated using one or more devices in order to produce a visualization effect.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Smithwick, to incorporate at least one UVA light source arranged to project at least one beam of UVA radiation (as taught by Last), in order to provide ultraviolet light in a manner that mitigates safety issues for a viewer (Last; [¶ 0030]).
Smithwick as modified by Last fails to disclose a display medium containing at least one photochromic compound.
However, Zhong teaches to: irradiate at least one portion of a display volume incorporating at least one display medium containing at least one photochromic compound (Zhong; irradiating at least one portion of a display volume incorporating at least one display medium (corresponding to liquid crystal layer formed through ultraviolet (UV) light irradiation or heating of a mixture of polymerizable monomers and liquid crystal molecules) containing at least one photochromic compound [¶ 0055, ¶ 0057, and ¶ 0061-0063], as illustrated within Fig. 6; moreover, polymer-dispersed LCD (PDLC display) [¶ 0007]).
Smithwick in view of Last and Zhong are considered to be analogous art because they pertain to generating and/or providing media data to a user, wherein light is manipulated using one or more devices in order to produce a visualization effect.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Smithwick as modified by Last, to incorporate to: irradiate at least one portion of a display volume incorporating at least one display medium containing at least one photochromic compound (as taught by Zhong), in order to provide increased light utilization of an LCD while further providing relatively fast response speed, relatively high contrast, and relatively high light transmittance and utilization (Zhong; [¶ 0006 and ¶ 0008-0010]).
Regarding claim 3, Smithwick in view of Last and Zhong discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the at least one photochromic compound is associated with at least one liquid medium (Smithwick; the at least one photochromic compound (i.e. light sensitive materials, photosensors) is associated with at least one liquid medium [¶ 0048-0051], as illustrated within Figs. 6A-C).
Zhong further teaches wherein the at least one photochromic compound is dissolved into at least one liquid medium (Zhong; the at least one photochromic compound is dissolved into at least one liquid medium [¶ 0055, ¶ 0057, and ¶ 0061-0063], as illustrated within Fig. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Smithwick as modified by Last and Zhong, to incorporate wherein the at least one photochromic compound is dissolved into at least one liquid medium (as taught by Zhong), in order to provide increased light utilization of an LCD while further providing relatively fast response speed, relatively high contrast, and relatively high light transmittance and utilization (Zhong; [¶ 0006 and ¶ 0008-0010]).
Regarding claim 4, Smithwick in view of Last and Zhong discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the at least one photochromic compound is suspended into at least one liquid medium (Zhong; the at least one photochromic compound is suspended into at least one liquid medium [¶ 0055, ¶ 0057, and ¶ 0061-0063], as illustrated within Fig. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Smithwick as modified by Last and Zhong, to incorporate the at least one photochromic compound is suspended into at least one liquid medium (as taught by Zhong), in order to provide increased light utilization of an LCD while further providing relatively fast response speed, relatively high contrast, and relatively high light transmittance and utilization (Zhong; [¶ 0006 and ¶ 0008-0010]).
Regarding claim 5, Smithwick in view of Last and Zhong discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the at least one photochromic compound is dispersed into at least one gel medium (Zhong; the at least one photochromic compound is dispersed into at least one gel (i.e. polymer, liquid crystal) medium [¶ 0055, ¶ 0057, and ¶ 0061-0063], as illustrated within Fig. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Smithwick as modified by Last and Zhong, to incorporate the at least one photochromic compound is dispersed into at least one gel medium (as taught by Zhong), in order to provide increased light utilization of an LCD while further providing relatively fast response speed, relatively high contrast, and relatively high light transmittance and utilization (Zhong; [¶ 0006 and ¶ 0008-0010]).
Regarding claim 6, Smithwick in view of Last and Zhong discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the at least one display medium incorporates at least one 3D printed display matrix composed of plurality of printed grid layers each incorporating at least one pattern of photochromic voxel layers associated with at least one photochromic compound (Smithwick; the at least one display medium incorporates at least one 3D printed display matrix (i.e. 3D marking (design or pattern) associated with a surface of the display screen) composed of plurality of printed/marked grid layers each incorporating at least one pattern of photochromic voxel (i.e. 3D pixel) layers [¶ 0034-0036 and ¶ 0045-0047] associated with at least one photochromic compound [¶ 0044, ¶ 0048-0049, and ¶ 0051], as illustrated within Figs. 4-6C; moreover, the projectable mask screen is configured to use photochromic material(s) [¶ 0041]; wherein, printed corresponds to a marked (surface) with a design or pattern further corresponding to a display layering and/or grid layout (i.e. electronic matrix of pixels) [¶ 0047-0051], as illustrated within Fig. 5, and virtual object [¶ 0045-0046], as illustrated within Fig. 4).
Zhong further teaches at least one pattern of photochromic voxel layers containing at least one photochromic compound (Zhong; at least one pattern of photochromic voxel layers containing at least one photochromic compound [¶ 0055, ¶ 0057, and ¶ 0061-0063], as illustrated within Fig. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Smithwick as modified by Last and Zhong, to incorporate at least one pattern of photochromic voxel layers containing at least one photochromic compound (as taught by Zhong), in order to provide increased light utilization of an LCD while further providing relatively fast response speed, relatively high contrast, and relatively high light transmittance and utilization (Zhong; [¶ 0006 and ¶ 0008-0010]).
Regarding claim 8, Smithwick in view of Last and Zhong discloses the device of claim 6, wherein the at least one 3D printed display matrix has been surrounded by at least one surface incorporating at least one asymmetric perforated one-way film arranged to provide background for the displayed representations of objects, solids, and surfaces (Smithwick; the at least one 3D printed display matrix (i.e. 3D marking (design or pattern) associated with a surface of the display screen) has been surrounded by at least one surface incorporating at least one film (i.e. screen, mask) arranged to provide background for the displayed representations of objects, solids, and surfaces [¶ 0034-0036 and ¶ 0045-0047], as illustrated within Figs. 4-6C; wherein the surface incorporates photosensors [¶ 0047-0048 and ¶ 0051]; wherein, at least one asymmetric perforated one-way (i.e. reflective or traversal) film [¶ 0052-0053], as illustrated within Figs. 7A-C).
Regarding claim 11, Smithwick in view of Last and Zhong discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the at least one UV light source comprises at least two planar pulsed UV laser arrays mutually positioned at predetermined angles (Smithwick; the at least one UV light source comprises at least two planar projectors (i.e. pulsed UVA laser arrays) mutually positioned at predetermined angles implicitly [¶ 0044-0046], as illustrated within Fig. 4), the laser arrays each having at least one element arranged to irradiate at least one common addressable voxel incorporating the at least one photochromic compound such that combined UV energy absorbed by the at least one photochromic compound drives the at least one clear-to-colored transition of the at least one at least one common addressable voxel (Smithwick; the projectors (i.e. laser arrays) each having at least one element arranged to irradiate at least one common addressable voxel (i.e. 3D pixel) incorporating the at least one photochromic compound such that combined UV energy/light absorbed by the at least one photochromic compound drives the at least one clear-to-colored (i.e. transparent to opaque) transition of the at least one common addressable voxel (i.e. 3D pixel) [¶ 0035-0036, ¶ 0041, and ¶ 0045-0046], as illustrated within Fig. 4; wherein, at least one common addressable voxel corresponds to desirable 3D pixel of the screen [¶ 0041-0042, ¶ 0047-0048, and ¶ 0051]).
Last further discloses the at least one UVA light source comprises at least two planar pulsed UVA laser arrays mutually positioned at predetermined angles (Last; the at least one UVA light source comprise at least two planar projectors (i.e. pulsed UVA laser arrays) mutually positioned at predetermined angles implicitly [¶ 0030-0031 and ¶ 0051-0052], as illustrated within Fig. 5); and
UVA energy (Last; UVA energy (i.e. light, laser) [¶ 0030-0031 and ¶ 0051-0052], as illustrated within Fig. 5]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Smithwick as modified by Last and Zhong, to incorporate the at least one UVA light source comprises at least two planar pulsed UVA laser arrays mutually positioned at predetermined angles; and UVA energy (as taught by Last), in order to provide ultraviolet light in a manner that mitigates safety issues for a viewer (Last; [¶ 0030]).
Regarding claim 14, Smithwick discloses a method for displaying representations of objects, solids, and surfaces volumetrically in a medium containing one or more photochromic compounds (Smithwick; a method [¶ 0014] for displaying representations of objects, solids, and surfaces volumetrically/three-dimensionally in a medium (i.e. projectable mask screen) containing one or more photochromic compounds [¶ 0034-0036], as illustrated within Fig. 2; wherein, a projectable mask screen corresponds to photochromic material(s) [¶ 0018-0019, ¶ 0040-0041, and ¶ 0044-0045], as illustrated within Figs. 3 and 4), the method comprising projecting at least one beam of UV light into at least one portion of a volumetric display (Smithwick; the method, as addressed above, comprises projecting at least one beam of UV light into at least one portion of a display volume (corresponding to the 3D space (e.g. layering, dimension) that makes up the display region) [¶ 0018-0019, ¶ 0036, and ¶ 0040-0042], as illustrated within Figs. 2-4), the volumetric display comprising at least one display medium associated with at least one photochromic compound (Smithwick; the display volume (corresponding to the 3D space (e.g. layering, dimension) that makes up the display region), as addressed above, comprise at least one display medium (i.e. projectable mask screen) associated with at least one photochromic compound [¶ 0018-0019, ¶ 0036, and ¶ 0040-0042], as illustrated within Figs. 2-4), the at least one photochromic compound arranged to undergo a clear-to-colored transition when irradiated by the at least one beam of UV light (Smtihwick; the at least one photochromic compound arranged to undergo a clear-to-colored (i.e. transparent to opaque) transition when irradiated by the at least one beam of UV light [¶ 0033, ¶ 0036-0037, and ¶ 0040-0041]; moreover, the UV strikes the screen and in response a surface of the screen turns from transparent to opaque (i.e. color) [¶ 0040-0041]; additionally, color (i.e. RGB) may be provided along with the virtual object [¶ 0044-0046 and ¶ 0052-0053] within a layer scheme [¶ 0047]).
Smithwick fails to explicitly disclose at least one beam of UVA light; and
at least one display medium comprising at least one photochromic compound.
However, Last teaches at least one beam of UVA light (Last; at least one beam of UVA light [¶ 0030]; moreover, projector [¶ 0041] configured to project at least three separate UV light patterns [¶ 0044] in relation with producing a color effect [¶ 0042-0043]).
Smithwick and Last are considered to be analogous art because both pertain to generating and/or providing media data to a user, wherein light is manipulated using one or more devices in order to produce a visualization effect.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Smithwick, to incorporate at least one beam of UVA light (as taught by Last), in order to provide ultraviolet light in a manner that mitigates safety issues for a viewer (Last; [¶ 0030]).
Smithwick as modified by Last fails to disclose at least one display medium comprising at least one photochromic compound.
However, Zhong teaches at least one display medium comprising at least one photochromic compound (Zhong; at least one display medium (corresponding to liquid crystal layer formed through ultraviolet (UV) light irradiation or heating of a mixture of polymerizable monomers and liquid crystal molecules) comprises at least one photochromic compound [¶ 0055, ¶ 0057, and ¶ 0061-0063], as illustrated within Fig. 6; moreover, polymer-dispersed LCD (PDLC display) [¶ 0007]).
Smithwick in view of Last and Zhong are considered to be analogous art because they pertain to generating and/or providing media data to a user, wherein light is manipulated using one or more devices in order to produce a visualization effect.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Smithwick as modified by Last, to incorporate at least one display medium comprising at least one photochromic compound (as taught by Zhong), in order to provide increased light utilization of an LCD while further providing relatively fast response speed, relatively high contrast, and relatively high light transmittance and utilization (Zhong; [¶ 0006 and ¶ 0008-0010]).
Regarding claim 16, Smithwick in view of Last and Zhong discloses the method of claim 14, wherein the at least one beam of UV light is provided by at least one pulsed UV laser array (Smithwick; the at least one beam of UV light is provided by at least one projector (i.e. pulsed UV laser array) [¶ 0036 and ¶ 0042], as illustrated within Fig. 2; additionally, multiple UV light sources and multiple UV projectors [¶ 0044-0045], as illustrated within Fig. 4), at least two elements of the at least one pulsed UV laser array being arranged to irradiate at least one common addressable voxel such that the UV energy absorbed by the at least one common addressable voxel drives at least one clear-to-colored transition of the at least one common addressable voxel (Smithwick; at least 2 elements of the at least one projector (i.e. pulsed UV laser array) being arranged to irradiate at least one common addressable voxel (i.e. 3D pixel) such that the UV energy/light absorbed by the at least one common addressable voxel drives at least one clear-to-colored (i.e. transparent to opaque) transition of the at least one common addressable voxel (i.e. 3D pixel) [¶ 0035-0036, ¶ 0041, and ¶ 0045-0046], as illustrated within Fig. 4; wherein, at least one common addressable voxel corresponds to desirable 3D pixel of the screen [¶ 0041-0042, ¶ 0047-0048, and ¶ 0051]).
Last further teaches the at least one beam of UVA light is provided by at least one pulsed UVA laser array (Last; the at least one beam of UVA light is provided by at least one projector (i.e. pulsed UVA laser arrays) mutually positioned at predetermined angles implicitly [¶ 0030-0031 and ¶ 0051-0052], as illustrated within Fig. 5); and
UVA energy (Last; UVA energy (i.e. light, laser) [¶ 0030-0031 and ¶ 0051-0052], as illustrated within Fig. 5]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Smithwick as modified by Last and Zhong, to incorporate the at least one UVA light source comprises at least two planar pulsed UVA laser arrays; and UVA energy (as taught by Last), in order to provide ultraviolet light in a manner that mitigates safety issues for a viewer (Last; [¶ 0030]).
Regarding claim 17, Smithwick in view of Last and Zhong discloses the method of claim 14, wherein the at least one beam of UV light is provided by at least two planar pulsed UV laser arrays mutually positioned at predetermined angles (Smithwick; the at least one beam of UV light is provided by at least two projectors (i.e. planar pulsed UV laser arrays) mutually positioned at predetermined angles implicitly [¶ 0044-0046], as illustrated within Fig. 4), each array having at least one element arranged to irradiate at least one common addressable voxel incorporating the at least one photochromic compound such that UV energy absorbed by the at least one photochromic compound drives the at least one clear-to-colored transition of the at least one common addressable voxel (Smithwick; each projector (i.e. array) having at least one implicit element arranged to irradiate at least one common addressable voxel (i.e. 3D pixel) incorporating the at least one photochromic compound such that UV energy/light absorbed by the at least one photochromic compound drives the at least one clear-to-colored (i.e. transparent to opaque) transition of the at least one common addressable voxel (i.e. 3D pixel) [¶ 0035-0036, ¶ 0041, and ¶ 0045-0046], as illustrated within Fig. 4; wherein, at least one common addressable voxel corresponds to desirable 3D pixel of the screen [¶ 0041-0042, ¶ 0047-0048, and ¶ 0051]).
Last further discloses the at least one beam of UVA light is provided by at least two planar pulsed UVA laser arrays mutually positioned at predetermined angles (Last; the at least one beam of UVA light is provided by at least two projectors (i.e. planar pulsed UVA laser arrays) mutually positioned at predetermined angles implicitly [¶ 0030-0031 and ¶ 0051-0052], as illustrated within Fig. 5); and
UVA energy (Last; UVA energy (i.e. light, laser) [¶ 0030-0031 and ¶ 0051-0052], as illustrated within Fig. 5]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Smithwick as modified by Last and Zhong, to incorporate the at least one beam of UVA light is provided by at least two planar pulsed UVA laser arrays mutually positioned at predetermined angles; and UVA energy (as taught by Last), in order to provide ultraviolet light in a manner that mitigates safety issues for a viewer (Last; [¶ 0030]).
Regarding claim 18, Smithwick in view of Last and Zhong discloses the method of claim 14, wherein the at least one beam of UV light is provided by at least one UV image projector (Smithwick; the at least one beam of UV light is provided by at least one UV image projector, as addressed within the parent claim(s)), the method further comprising:
projecting, by the at least one UV image projector, at least one beam of UV light onto at least one rotating mirror arranged to project several aspects of the representations into at least one portion of the display (Smithwick; projecting at least one beam of UV light onto at least one tunable mirror arranged [¶ 0052-0053] to project several aspects of the representations into at least one portion of the display by the at least one UV image projector [¶ 0033-0035], as illustrated within Fig. 2; wherein, the rotating is implicitly, given the tunable mirror control/manipulation of light [¶ 0022]; additionally, micro-mirror projector [¶ 0018]).
Last further teaches the at least one beam of UVA light is provided by at least one UVA image projector (Last; the at least one beam of UVA light is provided by at least one UVA image projector, as addressed within the parent claim(s)); and
projecting, by the at least one UVA image projector, at least one beam of UVA light (Last; projecting, by the at least one UVA image projector, at least one beam of UVA light [¶ 0030-0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Smithwick as modified by Last and Zhong, to incorporate the at least one beam of UVA light is provided by at least one UVA image projector; and projecting, by the at least one UVA image projector, at least one beam of UVA light (as taught by Last), in order to provide ultraviolet light in a manner that mitigates safety issues for a viewer (Last; [¶ 0030]).
Claim(s) 2 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smithwick in view of Last and Zhong as applied to claim(s) 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Takanashi et al., US PGPUB No. 20210026233 A1, hereinafter Takanashi.
Regarding claim 2, Smithwick in view of Last and Zhong discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the at least one photochromic compound has been chosen from the group of photochromic compounds (Zhong; wherein the at least one photochromic compound (has been chosen from a group of photochromic compounds) consisting of derivatives [¶ 0061-0062]; moreover, polymerizable monomers [¶ 0017]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Smithwick as modified by Last and Zhong, to incorporate the at least one photochromic compound has been chosen from the group of photochromic compounds (as taught by Zhong), in order to provide increased light utilization of an LCD while further providing relatively fast response speed, relatively high contrast, and relatively high light transmittance and utilization (Zhong; [¶ 0006 and ¶ 0008-0010]).
Smithwick as modified by Last and Zhong fails to disclose the at least one photochromic compound has been chosen from the group of photochromic compounds consisting of [2H]chromenes, diarylethenes, diarylnaphthopyrans, dithienylethene, furylfulgide, derivatives of [2H]chromenes, hexaarylbiimidazole, indolinospirothiapyrans, naphthopyrans, photochromic quinones, ruthenium sulfoxide compounds, silver halides, sodium nitroprusside, spirooxazines, spiropyrans, and their mixtures and combinations.
However, Takanashi teaches the at least one photochromic compound has been chosen from the group of photochromic compounds consisting of [2H]chromenes, diarylethenes, diarylnaphthopyrans, dithienylethene, furylfulgide, derivatives of [2H]chromenes, hexaarylbiimidazole, indolinospirothiapyrans, naphthopyrans, photochromic quinones, ruthenium sulfoxide compounds, silver halides, sodium nitroprusside, spirooxazines, spiropyrans, and their mixtures and combinations (Takanashi at least one photochromic compound has been chosen from the group of photochromic compounds consisting of silver halides [¶ 0045]; wherein, transition process from a transparent state to a colored state of T-type photochromic dyes [¶ 0044] in relation with display [¶ 0039-0040]; moreover, types of photochromic dyes/compounds [¶ 0042-0043]).
Smithwick in view of Last and Zhong and Takanashi are considered to be analogous art because they pertain to generating and/or providing media data to a user, wherein light is manipulated using one or more devices in order to produce a visualization effect.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Smithwick as modified by Last and Zhong, to incorporate the at least one photochromic compound has been chosen from the group of photochromic compounds consisting of silver halides (as taught by Takanashi), in order to provide improved visibility from a display in relation with image quality (Takanashi; [¶ 0002-0003, ¶ 0006-0009, and ¶ 0011]).
Regarding claim 20, the rejection of claim 20 is addressed within the rejection of claim 2, due to the similarities claim 20 and claim 2 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 2 regarding the rejection of claim 20.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smithwick in view of Last and Zhong as applied to claim(s) 6 above, and further in view of Adachi, US PGPUB No. 20150123150 A1, hereinafter Adachi.
Regarding claim 7, Smithwick in view of Last and Zhong discloses the device of claim 6, wherein the at least one 3D printed display matrix has been surrounded by at least one surface incorporating at least one UV-absorbing dopant (Smithwick; wherein the at least one 3D printed display matrix (i.e. 3D marking (design or pattern) associated with a surface of the display screen) has been surrounded by at least one surface incorporating at least one UV-absorbing agent/dopant [¶ 0047], as illustrated within Fig. 5).
Last further teaches UV corresponds to UVA (Last; UV comprise UVA [¶ 0030-0031]); and
UVA radiation (Last; UVA radiation [¶ 0030-0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Smithwick as modified by Last and Zhong, to incorporate UV corresponds to UVA; and UVA radiation (as taught by Last), in order to provide ultraviolet light in a manner that mitigates safety issues for a viewer (Last; [¶ 0030]).
Smithwick as modified by Last and Zhong fails to disclose at least one light-absorbing dopant arranged to reduce at least one of:
internal reflection of the UVA radiation; or
entry and exit of the UVA radiation.
However, Adachi teaches wherein the at least one display matrix has been surrounded by at least one surface incorporating at least one light-absorbing dopant (Adachi; the at least one display matrix has been surrounded by at least one surface incorporating at least one light-absorbing dopant [¶ 0071-0072]) arranged to reduce at least one of:
internal reflection of the light radiation (Adachi; at least one display matrix has been surrounded by at least one surface incorporating at least one light-absorbing dopant, as addressed above, arranged to reduce/prevent internal reflection (i.e. leakage) of the light radiation [¶ 0071-0072]; wherein, display devices comprising a pixel matrix is configured to incorporate an insulation (i.e. bank) [¶ 0004, and ¶ 0033-0034] in relation with light leakage [¶ 0036-0037] and suppression [¶ 0047-0049]); or
entry and exit of the UVA radiation.
Smithwick in view of Last and Zhong and Adachi are considered to be analogous art because they pertain to generating and/or providing media data to a user, wherein light is manipulated using one or more devices in order to produce a visualization effect.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Smithwick as modified by Last and Zhong, to incorporate wherein the at least one display matrix has been surrounded by at least one surface incorporating at least one light-absorbing dopant arranged to reduce at least one of: internal reflection of the light radiation (as taught by Adachi), in order to provide improved light from a display by reducing light leakage (Adachi; [¶ 0003-0004 and ¶ 0047-0049]).
Claim(s) 9, 15, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smithwick in view of Last and Zhong as applied to claim(s) 1 , 14, and 18 above, and further in view of Makinen et al., US PGPUB No. 20200371378 A1, hereinafter Makinen.
Regarding claim 9, Smithwick in view of Last and Zhong discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the at least one UV light source comprises at least one UV image projector (Smithwick; the at least one UV light source comprises at least one UV image projector, as addressed within the parent claim(s)), the device further comprising:
at least one rotating mirror arranged to project several aspects of the representations of objects into at least one portion of the display volume (Smithwick; the device, as addressed within the parent claim(s), further comprising at least one turable mirror arranged [¶ 0052-0053] to project several aspects of the representations of objects into at least one portion of the display volume (i.e. 3D space (e.g. layering, dimension) that makes up the display region) [¶ 0033-0035], as illustrated within Fig. 2; wherein, the rotating is implicitly, given the tunable mirror control/manipulation of light [¶ 0022]).
Last further teaches wherein the at least one UVA light source comprises at least one UVA image projector (Last; the at least one UVA light source comprises at least one UVA image projector, as addressed within the parent claim(s)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Smithwick as modified by Last and Zhong, to incorporate the at least one UVA light source comprises at least one UVA image projector (as taught by Last), in order to provide ultraviolet light in a manner that mitigates safety issues for a viewer (Last; [¶ 0030]).
Smithwick as modified by Last and Zhong discloses the at least one axisymmetric collimating optical assembly.
However, Makinen teaches at least one axisymmetric collimating optical assembly (Makinen; at least one axisymmetric collimating optical assembly [¶ 0134-0135]; additionally, light field projection [¶ 0107, ¶ 0113, and ¶ 0130] and digital micromirror device (DMD) [¶ 0104-0105 and ¶ 0109]).
Smithwick in view of Last and Zhong and Makinen are considered to be analogous art because they pertain to generating and/or providing media data to a user, wherein light is manipulated using one or more devices in order to produce a visualization effect.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Smithwick as modified by Last and Zhong, to incorporate at least one axisymmetric collimating optical assembly (as taught by Makinen), in order to provide visualizations that forms within the eyes of a viewer which produce improved imaging over conventional displays (Makinen; [¶ 0003-0004 and ¶ 0011-0014]).
Regarding claim 15, Smithwick in view of Last and Zhong discloses the method of claim 14, wherein the at least one beam of UVA light is provided by at least one pulsed UVA laser (Smithwick; the at least one beam of UV light is provided by at least one pulsed UV laser, as addressed within the parent claim(s)), the method further comprising:
splitting the at least one beam of UV light into at least two resulting beams (Smithwick; the method, as addressed within the parent claim(s), comprises splitting the at least one beam of UV light into at least two resulting beams [¶ 0052-0053], as illustrated within Figs. 7A-C);
directing at least two of the at least two resulting beams to at least one optical assembly (Smithwick; directing at least two of the at least two resulting beams to at least one optical assembly [¶ 0045-0046], as illustrated within Fig. 4); and
converging at least two of the at least two resulting beams on at least one addressable voxel for a time period sufficient to drive at least one clear-to-colored transition of the at least one addressable voxel (Smithwick; converging at least two of the at least two resulting beams on at least one addressable voxel (i.e. 3D pixel) for a time period (i.e. 30 ms) sufficient/effective [¶ 0041 and ¶ 0045-0046] to drive at least one clear-to-colored (i.e. transparent to opaque) transition of the at least one addressable voxel (i.e. 3D pixel) [¶ 0018-0019, ¶ 0048, and ¶ 0051]).
Last further teaches the at least one beam of UVA light is provided by at least one pulsed UVA laser (Last; the at least one beam of UVA light is provided by at least one pulsed UVA laser [¶ 0030-0031]).
Smithwick as modified by Last and Zhong fails to disclose at least one axisymmetric collimating optical assembly.
However, Makinen teaches directing at least two of the at least two resulting beams to at least one axisymmetric collimating optical assembly (Makinen; directing at least two of the at least two resulting beams to at least one axisymmetric collimating optical assembly [¶ 0134-0135]).
Smithwick in view of Last and Zhong and Makinen are considered to be analogous art because they pertain to generating and/or providing media data to a user, wherein light is manipulated using one or more devices in order to produce a visualization effect.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Smithwick as modified by Last and Zhong, to incorporate directing at least two of the at least two resulting beams to at least one axisymmetric collimating optical assembly (as taught by Makinen), in order to provide visualizations that forms within the eyes of a viewer which produce improved imaging over conventional displays (Makinen; [¶ 0003-0004 and ¶ 0011-0014]).
Regarding claim 19, Smithwick in view of Last and Zhong discloses the method of claim 18, wherein the at least one rotating mirror comprises at least one of a spherical, elliptical, or parabolic mirror (Smithwick; the at least one rotating mirror [¶ 0052-0053] comprises a shape, as illustrated within Figs. 7A-C; wherein, the rotating is implicitly, given the tunable mirror control/manipulation of light [¶ 0022]).
Smithwick as modified by Last and Zhong fails to disclose a mirror comprises at least one of a spherical, elliptical, or parabolic mirror.
However, Makinen teaches the at least one rotating mirror comprises at least one of a spherical, elliptical, or parabolic mirror (Makinen the at least one rotating mirror comprises parabolic mirror [¶ 0099, ¶ 0116, and ¶ 0206-0207])
Smithwick in view of Last and Zhong and Makinen are considered to be analogous art because they pertain to generating and/or providing media data to a user, wherein light is manipulated using one or more devices in order to produce a visualization effect.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Smithwick as modified by Last and Zhong, to incorporate the at least one rotating mirror comprises at least one of a spherical, elliptical, or parabolic mirror (as taught by Makinen), in order to provide visualizations that forms within the eyes of a viewer which produce improved imaging over conventional displays (Makinen; [¶ 0003-0004 and ¶ 0011-0014]).
Claim(s) 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smithwick in view of Last and Zhong as applied to claim(s) 1 above, in view of Lewis et al., US Patent No. 3829838, hereinafter Lewis, in view of Makinen, and further in view of Koethler et al., US PGPUB No. 20100128244 A1, hereinafter Koethler.
Regarding claim 10, Smithwick in view of Last and Zhong discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the at least one UV light source comprises at least one UV laser (Smithwick; the at least one UV light source comprises at least one projected UV laser [¶ 0035-0037 and ¶ 0045-0046], as illustrated within Figs. 2 and 4), the device further comprising:
at least one beam splitter affixed to at least one mount arranged to split at least one laser beam of UV radiation into at least two resulting beams (Smithwick; at least one tunable beam splitter affixed to at least mount arranged to split at least one projected laser beam of UV radiation into at least two resulting beams [¶ 0052-0053], as illustrated within Figs. 7A-C; wherein, the rotating is implicitly, given the tunable mirror control/manipulation of light [¶ 0022]); and
at least one optical assembly arranged to converge at least two of the at least two resulting UV laser beams on at least one addressable voxel within at least one portion of the display volume (Smithwick; at least one optical assembly arranged to converge at least two of the at least two resulting UV laser beams on at least one addressable voxel (i.e. 3D pixel) within at least one portion of the display volume (corresponding to the 3D space (e.g. layering, dimension) that makes up the display region) [¶ 0045-0046]; moreover, the projectors are configured to converge light upon the screen [¶ 0018-0019, ¶ 0036, and ¶ 0040-0042], as illustrated within Figs. 2-4).
Last further teaches the at least one UVA light source comprises at least one pulsed UVA laser (Last; the at least one UVA light source comprises at least one pulsed UVA laser [¶ 0030-0031]);
UVA radiation (Last; UVA radiation [¶ 0030-0031]; wherein, UV comprises UVA); and
UVA laser beams (Last; UVA laser beams (i.e. light rays) [¶ 0030-0031]; wherein, UV light comprises UVA light).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Smithwick as modified by Last and Zhong, to incorporate the at least one UVA light source comprises at least one pulsed UVA laser; UVA radiation; and UVA laser beams (as taught by Last), in order to provide ultraviolet light in a manner that mitigates safety issues for a viewer (Last; [¶ 0030]).
Smithwick as modified by Last and Zhong fail to disclose at least one pulsed laser;
at least one rotating beam splitter;
at least one telescopic gimbal mount; and
at least one axisymmetric collimating optical assembly arranged to converge at least two of the at least two resulting UV laser beams.
However, Lewis teaches at least one pulsed UV laser (Lewis; at least one pulsed UV laser corresponding to light sources [Col. 9, lines 22-62, Col. 17, line 35 to Col. 18, line 12 and Col. 18, lines 33-60]; wherein, a light source is configured to emit UV light [Col. 4, line 42 to Col. 5, line 14]; additionally, timing and excited stated of dynamic materials [Col. 10, line 55 to Col. 11, line 26 and Col. 19, lines 1-42], such as using Phosphors [Col. 15, lines 30-49] and/or photochromic [Col. 15, line 49 to Col. 16, line 49]);
at least one beam splitter (Lewis; a beamsplitter [Col. 62, line 63 to Col 63, line 29], as illustrated within Fig. 53); and
at least one axisymmetric collimating optical assembly arranged to converge at least two of the at least two resulting UV laser beams (Lewis; at least one axisymmetric collimating optical assembly arranged to converge (i.e. intersection point) at least two of the at least two resulting UV laser beams [Col. 9, lines 12-38 and Col. 11, line 43 to Col. 12, line 27], as illustrated within Fig. 1; moreover, Fig. 1 illustrates, as configuration that corresponds to axisymmetric collimating optical assembly; and moreover, beams [Col. 16, line 49 to Col. 17, line 18] in relation with a holographic display [Col. 17, lines 20-32]).
Smithwick in view of Last and Zhong and Lewis are considered to be analogous art because they pertain to generating and/or providing data to within a system, wherein light is manipulated using one or more devices in order to produce a visualization effect.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Smithwick as modified by Last and Zhong, to incorporate at least one pulsed laser; at least one beam splitter; and at least one axisymmetric collimating optical assembly arranged to converge at least two of the at least two resulting UV laser beams (as taught by Lewis), in order to provide three-dimensional imagery by enhancing the appearance of depth using controlled levels of luminescence in relation with energy absorption (Lewis; [Col. 3, line 29 to Col. 4, line 41]).
Smithwick as modified by Last, Zhong, and Lewis fail to disclose at least one rotating beam splitter;
at least one telescopic gimbal mount; and
at least one axisymmetric collimating optical assembly arranged to converge at least two of the at least two resulting UV laser beams.
However, Makinen teaches at least one rotating beam splitter (Makinen; [¶ 0134-0135]; additionally, rotation or a mirror [¶ 0107-0109]);
at least one axisymmetric collimating optical assembly arranged to converge at least two of the at least two resulting laser beams (Makinen; at least one axisymmetric collimating optical assembly arranged to converge at least two of the at least two resulting laser beams [¶ 0134-0135]).
Smithwick in view of Last, Zhong, and Lewis and Makinen are considered to be analogous art because they pertain to generating and/or providing media data to a user, wherein light is manipulated using one or more devices in order to produce a visualization effect.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Smithwick as modified by Last, Zhong, and Lewis, to incorporate at least one axisymmetric collimating optical assembly arranged to converge at least two of the at least two resulting laser beams (as taught by Makinen), in order to provide visualizations that forms within the eyes of a viewer which produce improved imaging over conventional displays (Makinen; [¶ 0003-0004 and ¶ 0011-0014]).
Smithwick as modified by Last, Zhong, Lewis, and Makinen fails to disclose at least one telescopic gimbal mount.
However, Koehler teaches at least one beam splitter affixed to at least one telescopic gimbal mount (Koehler; at least one rotating beam splitter affixed to at least one telescopic gimbal mount [¶ 0020 and ¶ 0024-0025]).
Smithwick in view of Last, Zhong, Lewis, and Makinen and Koehler are considered to be analogous art because they pertain to generating and/or providing data to within a system, wherein light is manipulated using one or more devices in order to produce information.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Smithwick as modified by Last, Zhong, Lewis, and Makinen, to incorporate at least one beam splitter affixed to at least one telescopic gimbal mount (as taught by Koehler), in order to provide the transfer of data in relatively large amounts while operating in a reliable manner (Koehler; [¶ 0002-0003]).
Regarding claim 12, Smithwick in view of Last, Zhong, Lewis, Makinen, and Koehler discloses the device of claim 10, wherein the at least one pulsed UV laser is arranged to radiate at least one beam of UV radiation and irradiate the at least one portion display volume forming successive cross sections of the represented 3D objects (Smithwick; the at least one projected UV laser is arranged to radiate at least one projected beam of UV radiation and irradiate the at least one portion display volume (i.e. 3D space (e.g. layering, dimension) that makes up the display region) forming successive cross sections of the represented 3D objects [¶ 0035-0037 and ¶ 0045-0046], as illustrated within Fig. 4).
Last further teaches at least one UVA laser (Last; at least one UVA laser [¶ 0030-0031]; wherein, UV light comprises UVA light); and
UVA radiation (Last; UVA radiation [¶ 0030-0031]; wherein, UV comprises UVA).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Smithwick as modified by Last, Zhong, Makinen, and Koehler, to incorporate at least one pulsed UVA laser; and UVA radiation (as taught by Last), in order to provide ultraviolet light in a manner that mitigates safety issues for a viewer (Last; [¶ 0030]).
Lewis further teaches pulsed UV laser (Lewis; pulser UV laser [Col. 9, lines 22-62, Col. 17, line 35 to Col. 18, line 12 and Col. 18, lines 33-60]; wherein, a light source is configured to emit UV light [Col. 4, line 42 to Col. 5, line 14]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Smithwick as modified by Last, Zhong, Lewis, and Makinen, to incorporate pulsed UV laser (as taught by Koehler), in order to provide the transfer of data in relatively large amounts while operating in a reliable manner (Koehler; [¶ 0002-0003]).
Regarding claim 13, Smithwick in view of Last, Zhong, Lewis, Makinen, and Koehler discloses the device of claim 12, further comprising at least one mirror array field (Smithwick; at least one mirror array field [¶ 0052-0053]; wherein, a screen comprises multiple mirrors), the mirror array field comprising a plurality of MOEMS mirror elements arranged and oriented such that at least two of the MOEMS mirror elements irradiate at least one common addressable voxel of the cross section of the represented 3D object such that combined UVA energy absorbed by the at least one common addressable voxel drives the at least one clear-to-colored transition (Smithwick; the mirror array field, as addressed above, comprising a plurality of mirror elements arranged and oriented such that at least two of the mirror elements irradiate at least one common addressable voxel (i.e. 3D pixel) of the cross section of the represented 3D object such that combined UV energy/light absorbed by the at least one common addressable voxel (i.e. 3D pixel) drives the at least one clear-to-colored (i.e. transparent to opaque) transition [¶ 0045-0046 and ¶ 0052-0053]; moreover, clear-to-colored (i.e. transparent to opaque) transition [¶ 0035-0036, ¶ 0041, and ¶ 0045-0046], as illustrated within Fig. 4; wherein, at least one common addressable voxel corresponds to desirable 3D pixel of the screen [¶ 0041-0042, ¶ 0047-0048, and ¶ 0051]).
Makinen further teaches MOEMS corresponding to a mirror type (Makinen; a type of mirror corresponding to MOEMS [¶ 0100]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Smithwick as modified by Last, Zhong, Lewis, Makinen, and Koehler, to incorporate MOEMS corresponding to a mirror type (as taught by Makinen), in order to provide visualizations that forms within the eyes of a viewer which produce improved imaging over conventional displays (Makinen; [¶ 0003-0004 and ¶ 0011-0014]).
Claim(s) 1, 6, 11, 14, 16, 21, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Downing, US Patent No. 5684621, hereinafter Downing, in view of Refai et al., US PGPUB No. 20120274907 A1, hereinafter Refai, and further in view of Last.
Regarding claim 21, Downing discloses a device for displaying representations of objects, solids, and surfaces volumetrically in a medium containing one or more photochromic compounds (Downing; a device for displaying representations of objects, solids, and surfaces volumetrically in a medium [Col. 2, line 60 to Col. 3, line 38] containing one or more photochromic compounds/materials [Col. 3, line 39 to Col. 4, line 16]; wherein, one or more materials are reactive to light corresponding to photochromic [Col. 9, line 37 to Col. 10, line 20], as illustrated within Fig. 6) comprising:
at least one light source arranged to project at least one beam of radiation and irradiate at least one portion of a display volume incorporating at least one display medium containing at least one photochromic compound for a predetermined time period (Downing; at least one (infrared or non-visible light) light source arranged to project at least one beam of (infrared or non-visible light) radiation and irradiate at least one portion of a display volume incorporating at least one display medium containing at least one photochromic compound/material [Col. 5, line 45 to Col. 6, line 24 and Col. 8, lines 46 to Col. 9, line 19], as illustrated within Fig. 1, for an implicit predetermined time period (given energy level configurations, transfer, and absorption) [Col 3, lines 25-67]; moreover, energy level configuration and absorption [Col. 6, lines 26 to 65 and Col. 8, lines 22-64] resulting in a transition involving electromagnetic radiation [Col. 6, line 66 to Col. 7, line 23]; additionally, projected light associated with nanometer wavelengths [Col. 11, line 64 to Col. 12, line 26], as illustrated within Figs. 9-11), wherein, the irradiance of the irradiated portion of the at least one display medium and the predetermined time period have been sufficient for at least one clear-to-colored transition of at least one voxel of the at least one display medium from a transparent state to a colored state wherein the at least one voxel is generated within a plurality of three-dimensional grid layers within the at least one display medium and contained within said plurality of three-dimensional grid layers (Downing; the irradiance of the irradiated portion of the at least one display medium and the predetermined time period (implicitly given energy level configuration [as addressed above]) have been sufficient for at least one clear-to-colored transition of at least one voxel of the at least one display medium from a transparent state to a colored state wherein the at least one voxel is generated [Col. 10, lines 59 to Col. 11, lines 7], as illustrated within Fig. 7, within a plurality of 3D grid layers within the at least one display medium and contained within said plurality of 3D grid layers [Col. 11, line10-44], as illustrated within Figs. 8-8B; wherein, the materials are transparent by default/design [Col. 5, lines 45-66 and Col. 9, lines 38-45] and color is added when active [Col. 4, lines 17-32 and Col. 10, lines 23-44 and Col. 10, line 59 to Col. 11, line 8], i.e. ground state vs. excited/active state) and wherein, after the predetermined time period after the irradiation, the at least one voxel activated in the colored state spontaneously transitions by a colored-to-clear transition back into the original transparent state (Downing; wherein the at least one voxel activated in the colored state spontaneously transitions by a colored-to-clear transition back into the original transparent state [Col. 6, line 66 to Col. 7, line 23 and Col. 7, lines 36-61] after the implicit predetermined time period (given energy level configurations and transfer) after the irradiation [Col 3, lines 25-38, Col. 6, lines 26-44, and Col. 10, lines 23-44]; moreover, energy level configuration and transfer (e.g. downward) [id.]); and
wherein the at least one display medium incorporates at least one 3D printed display matrix composed of plurality of printed grid layers each incorporating at least one pattern of photochromic voxel layers containing at least one photochromic compound (Downing; wherein the at least one display medium incorporates at least one 3D printed display matrix (i.e. doped layers) composed of plurality of printed grid layers each incorporating at least one pattern of photochromic voxel layers [Col. 11, lines 10-55] containing at least one photochromic compound/material [Col. 11, line 57 to Col. 12, line 54], as illustrated within Figs. 8-B; moreover, doped glass [id.] in relation with phonon response glass [Col. 9, lines 38-65], as illustrated within Fig. 6; additionally, vertical cavity surface emitting laser diodes [Col. 14, lines 19-54], as illustrated within Fig. 15); and
wherein the at least one light source comprises at least two planar pulsed laser arrays mutually positioned at predetermined angles (Downing; wherein the at least one (infrared) light source comprises at least two planar pulsed (infrared) laser arrays [Col. 5, line 45 to Col. 6, line 16 and Col. 10, lines 46-58] mutually positioned at implicitly predetermined angles (given configuration) [Col. 14, lines 26-54], as illustrated within Fig. 15; wherein, pulse-length multiplexing in which the pump beams are pulse in time and individual colors are addressed [Col. 4, lines 17-33]; additionally, angled light projection that create a cross-section or intersection point [Col. 11, lines 27-44 and Col. 13, line 50 to Col. 14, line 24]; moreover, Figs. 1 and 8A-B illustrates, an intersection point from which light is angled), the laser arrays each having at least one element arranged to irradiate at least one common addressable voxel incorporating the at least one photochromic compound such that combined energy absorbed by the at least one photochromic compound drives the at least one clear-to-colored transition of the at least one at least one common addressable voxel (Downing; the laser arrays each having at least one element arranged to irradiate at least one common addressable voxel incorporating the at least one photochromic compound such that combined (infrared) energy absorbed by the at least one photochromic compound drives the at least one clear-to-colored transition of the at least one at least one common addressable voxel [Col. 3, lines 11-38 and Col. 5, line 45 to Col. 6, line 16]; moreover, ground state to excited/active state [id.]; moreover, energy transferring associated with absorption of phonons in relation with generating color [Col. 4, lines 17-33 and Col. 8, line 22 to Col. 9, line 3]; and moreover, pulse length multiplexing [Col. 10, line 45 to Col. 11, line 8]; wherein, energy absorption involves net energy (i.e. combined energy absorption) [Col. 8, lines 22-64]).
Downing fails to explicitly disclose UVA.
However, Refai teaches UV waves being a substitute for infrared waves (Refai; UV in relation with a light source, laser arrays, radiation/irradiate, and energy absorption [¶ 0025-0026, ¶ 0032, ¶ 0034-0035 and ¶ 0043-0045], as illustrated within Fig. 1, Fig. 2, and Figs. 4A-B; moreover, projection of light for a specified length of time to establish a cross-section in relation with energizing particles [¶ 0046 and ¶ 0048-0050]; additionally angle projections [¶ 0053]; wherein, ultra-violet can be substituted for infrared [¶ 0044-0045]).
Downing and Refai are considered to be analogous art because both pertain to generating and/or providing data to within a system, wherein light is manipulated using one or more devices in order to produce visualization effects.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Downing, to incorporate UV waves being a substitute for infrared waves (as taught by Refai), in order to provide realistic three-dimensional imaging that is efficient and robust (Refai; [¶ 0005-0008]).
Downing as modified by Refai fails to explicitly disclose UVA.
However, Last teaches UVA (Last; UVA [¶ 0030-0031]).
Downing in view of Refai and Last are considered to be analogous art because they pertain to generating and/or providing data to within a system, wherein light is manipulated using one or more devices in order to produce visualization effects.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to Downing as modified by Refai, to incorporate UVA (as taught by Last), in order to provide ultraviolet light in a manner that mitigates safety issues for a viewer (Last; [¶ 0030]).
Regarding claim 23, the rejection of claim 23 is addressed within the rejection of claim 21, due to the similarities claim 23 and claim 21 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 21 regarding the rejection of claim 23. Although, claim 23 and claim 21 may not be identical, they are considerably comparable or substantially equivalent given their overlapping subject matter. Thus, it is reasonable to reject claim 23 based on the teachings and rational in relation with the prior art within the rejection of claim 21.
Regarding claim 1, the rejection of claim 1 is addressed within the rejection of claim 21, due to the similarities claim 1 and claim 21 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 21 regarding the rejection of claim 1. Although, claim 1 and claim 21 may not be identical, they are considerably comparable or substantially equivalent given their overlapping subject matter. Thus, it is reasonable to reject claim 1 based on the teachings and rational in relation with the prior art within the rejection of claim 21.
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 6 is addressed within the rejection of claim 21, due to the similarities claim 6 and claim 21 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 21 regarding the rejection of claim 6. Although, claim 6 and claim 21 may not be identical, they are considerably comparable or substantially equivalent given their overlapping subject matter. Thus, it is reasonable to reject claim 6 based on the teachings and rational in relation with the prior art within the rejection of claim 21.
Regarding claim 11, the rejection of claim 11 is addressed within the rejection of claim 21, due to the similarities claim 11 and claim 21 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 21 regarding the rejection of claim 11. Although, claim 11 and claim 21 may not be identical, they are considerably comparable or substantially equivalent given their overlapping subject matter. Thus, it is reasonable to reject claim 11 based on the teachings and rational in relation with the prior art within the rejection of claim 21.
Regarding claim 14, the rejection of claim 14 is addressed within the rejection of claim 21, due to the similarities claim 14 and claim 21 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 21 regarding the rejection of claim 14. Although, claim 14 and claim 21 may not be identical, they are considerably comparable or substantially equivalent given their overlapping subject matter. Thus, it is reasonable to reject claim 14 based on the teachings and rational in relation with the prior art within the rejection of claim 21.
Regarding claim 16, the rejection of claim 16 is addressed within the rejection of claim 21, due to the similarities claim 16 and claim 21 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 21 regarding the rejection of claim 16. Although, claim 16 and claim 21 may not be identical, they are considerably comparable or substantially equivalent given their overlapping subject matter. Thus, it is reasonable to reject claim 16 based on the teachings and rational in relation with the prior art within the rejection of claim 21.
Claim(s) 2 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Downing in view of Refai and Last as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Takanashi.
Regarding claim 2, Downing in view of Refai and Last further discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the at least one photochromic compound has been chosen from the group of photochromic compounds consisting of [2H]chromenes, diarylethenes, diarylnaphthopyrans, dithienylethene, furylfulgide, derivatives of [2H]chromenes, hexaarylbiimidazole, indolinospirothiapyrans, naphthopyrans, photochromic quinones, ruthenium sulfoxide compounds, silver halides, sodium nitroprusside, spirooxazines, spiropyrans, and their mixtures and combinations (Downing; heavy-mental halide and alkali-metal halide [Col. 9, line 38 to Col. 10, line 20], as illustrated within Fig. 6).
However, Takanashi teaches the at least one photochromic compound silver halides (Takanashi at least one photochromic compound consisting of silver halides [¶ 0045]; wherein, transition process from a transparent state to a colored state of T-type photochromic dyes [¶ 0044] in relation with display [¶ 0039-0040]; moreover, types of photochromic dyes/compounds [¶ 0042-0043]).
Downing in view of Refai and Last and Takanashi are considered to be analogous art because they pertain to generating and/or providing media data to a user, wherein light is manipulated using one or more devices in order to produce a visualization effect.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Downing as modified by Refai and Last, to incorporate the at least one photochromic compound silver halides (as taught by Takanashi), in order to provide improved visibility from a display in relation with image quality (Takanashi; [¶ 0002-0003, ¶ 0006-0009, and ¶ 0011]).
Regarding claim 20, the rejection of claim 20 is addressed within the rejection of claim 2, due to the similarities claim 20 and claim 2 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 2 regarding the rejection of claim 20.
Claim(s) 13, 22, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Downing in view of Refai and Last, and in further view of Bausenwein et al., US PGPUB No. 20140022510 A1, hereinafter Bausenwein.
Regarding claim 22, the rejection of claim 22 is addressed within the rejection of claim 21, due to the similarities claim 22 and claim 21 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 21 regarding the rejection of claim 22. Although, claim 22 and claim 21 may not be identical, they are considerably comparable or substantially equivalent given their overlapping subject matter. However, the subject matter/limitations not addressed by claim 21 is/are addressed below.
Downing discloses wherein the at least one pulsed laser is arranged to radiate at least one pulsed beam of radiation and irradiate the at least one portion display volume forming successive cross sections of the represented 3D objects (Downing; the at least one pulsed (infrared) laser is arranged to radiate at least one pulsed beam of (infrared) radiation and irradiate the at least one portion display volume forming successive cross sections of the represented 3D objects [Col. 10, line 46 to Col. 11, line 44], as illustrated within Fig. 8-B; moreover, a cross-section forming a voxel further corresponding to a 3D image [Col. 5, line 45 to Col. 6, line 24 and Col. 14, lines 26-54], as illustrated within Fig. 1 and Fig. 15), and at least one mirror array field, the mirror array field comprising a plurality of mirror elements arranged and oriented such that at least two of the mirror elements irradiate at least one common addressable voxel of the cross section of the represented 3D object such that combined energy absorbed by the at least one common addressable voxel drives the at least one clear-to-colored transition (Downing; at least one mirror array field, the mirror array field comprising a plurality of mirror elements arranged and oriented such that at least two of the mirror elements irradiate at least one common addressable voxel of the cross section of the represented 3D object such that combined (infrared) energy absorbed by the at least one common addressable voxel drives the at least one clear-to-colored transition [Col. 5, line 45 to Col. 6, line 16 and Col. 13, lines 14-39], as illustrated within Fig. 10; additionally, creating a point were light intersects and forms an image [Col. 13, lines 50-67], as illustrated within Fig. 13; even further, micro-mechanical mirror [Col. 4, lines 33-52]).
Downing fails to disclose a plurality of MOEMS mirror elements arranged and oriented such that at least two of the MOEMS mirror elements.
However, Bausenwein teaches the mirror array field comprising a plurality of MOEMS mirror elements arranged and oriented such that at least two of the MOEMS mirror elements irradiate at least one common cross section (Bausenwein; the mirror array field comprising a plurality of MOEMS mirror elements arranged and oriented such that at least two of the MOEMS mirror elements irradiate at least one common cross section [¶ 0105-0107], as illustrated within Figs. 4A-E and Figs. 5A-B; moreover, 1st and 2nd spatial light modulating system into image plane [¶ 0109-0111], as illustrated within Fig. 6C).
Downing and Bausenwein are considered to be analogous art because both pertain to generating and/or providing media data to a user, wherein light is manipulated using one or more devices in order to produce a visualization effect.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Downing, to incorporate the mirror array field comprising a plurality of MOEMS mirror elements arranged and oriented such that at least two of the MOEMS mirror elements irradiate at least one common cross section (as taught by Bausenwein), in order to provide a dynamic presentation of content at different orientations (Bausenwein; [¶ 0005-0006, ¶ 0014, and ¶ 0016]).
(further refer to the rejection of claim 21)
Regarding claim 24, the rejection of claim 24 is addressed within the rejection of claim 22, due to the similarities claim 24 and claim 22 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 22 regarding the rejection of claim 24. Although, claim 24 and claim 22 may not be identical, they are considerably comparable or substantially equivalent given their overlapping subject matter. Thus, it is reasonable to reject claim 24 based on the teachings and rational in relation with the prior art within the rejection of claim 22.
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 13 is addressed within the rejection of claim 22, due to the similarities claim 13 and claim 22 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 22 regarding the rejection of claim 13. Although, claim 13 and claim 22 may not be identical, they are considerably comparable or substantially equivalent given their overlapping subject matter. Thus, it is reasonable to reject claim 13 based on the teachings and rational in relation with the prior art within the rejection of claim 22.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to PTO-892, Notice of Reference Cited for a listing of analogous art.
Applicant is encouraged to consider the teachings of the prior art within the PTO-892, in particular:
Koudsi et al. (US Patent No.829612 B1) : 3D display using the ultraviolet spectrum
Downing (US Patent No. 5764403) : light wave transference into energy for display
Refai et al. (US PGPUB No. 20090179852 A1) : rendering 3D image using volumetric display
Whitesell et al. (US Patent No. 666184 B1) : 3D volumetric display using light
Wu (US PGPUB No. 20220018711 A1) : UV detection & photochromic ink
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to PTO-892, Notice of Reference Cited for a listing of analogous art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Charles Lloyd Beard whose telephone number is (571)272-5735. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 AM - 5: 00 PM, alternate Fridays EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tammy Goddard can be reached at (571) 272-7773. 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.
CHARLES LLOYD. BEARD
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2611
/CHARLES L BEARD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611
