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 .
Response to Amendment
Received 12/04/2023
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 2 and 20 has/have been amended.
The 35 U.S.C § 103 rejection to claim(s) 1-20 have been fully considered in view of the amendments received on 12/04/2023 and are fully addressed in the prior art rejection below.
Response to Arguments
Received 12/04/2023
Applicant's arguments filed 12/04/2023 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive; as expressed below.
Regarding independent claim(s) 1 and 14:
Applicant argues (Remarks, Page 8, ¶ 2), that “Regarding claims 1-6, 8, 11, 14, 16-18, and 20, Smithwick teaches a device and method using two separate and different embodiments of projectors, one embodiment comprising a pixel-free photochromic material (Figs.2 and 4, para. 0018, 0041, 0044-0046) and one embodiment comprising a photosensor screen with pixels i.e. addressable electrowetting cells (para. 0047-0048, Figs. 5, 6A-C and 7A-C). The Office Action consistently cites the photosensor embodiment with pixels of Fig. 5, GA-C, and 7A-C as teaching the pixel-free photochromic embodiment of Fig. 4 (Office Action pages 4, 7, 9-11). This is incorrect because the embodiments of pixel-free photochromic screen and pixelated photosensor screen are not prima facie equivalents of each other. See MPEP § 2183. ”.
The Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s arguments fail to view the applied teachings of Smithwick (US PGPUB No. 20140333899 A1), wherein Applicant’s arguments overlooks the recited passages of Smithwick (under ¶ 0047). Although, page 4 of the Office Action on 08/03/2023 recites ¶ 0047 and ¶ 0051-0053, said paragraphs are clearly mentioned within the Office Action as additional and/or alternative (using terms such as “additionally” and/or “moreover”) teaches that are relevant. Furthermore, said paragraphs are recited as a means to teach additional ways one or more claim terms are being addressed under the prior art even when they are in alternative embodiments. Although there is a distinction between projected and pixelated imagery, Smithwick teaches that it would be an understood reasonable to substitute one feature/component for another (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” [¶ 0047]; and, “The mask screen and light sensing may be pixellated 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. The optically addressed mask screen may be used with single, tiled, scanned, or optically addressed semi-transparent images or displays to create opaque high contrast virtual characters” [¶ 0056]). Wherein, Applicant fails to view that both the pixelated or pixel-free displays preforms in a similar manner (e.g. transparent to opaque, or vice versa) and are both photosensitive (e.g. responsive to UV or IR light) as claimed. Applicant is reminded that, it is understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that, pixels are also associated with projected light from a source in relation with a display surface means. In this case, Smithwick teaches, within the argued embodiment (Smithwick; [¶ 0047-0053], Fig. 5, Figs. 6A-C, and Figs. 7A-C) by Applicant, one or more pixels/cells that are photosensitive to UV or IR light and when light is projected to or within the pixel/cell as a response the display transitioning between transparency and opaqueness (Smithwick; [¶ 0020-0022]). Thus, Applicant arguments of the embodiment above, indicate an additional means for which Smithwick addresses the claimed subject matter, as oppose to indicating differences between the claimed subject matter and the teachings of the prior art.
Additionally, the Office Action recites ¶ 0047 and ¶ 0052-0053 not to address the subject matter of “… 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 photocomic compound”, “… the irradiance of the irradiated portion of the at least one display medium”, or “… at least one voxel of the at least one display medium from a transparent state to a colored state” as inferred by Applicant arguments, but rather that “… color (i.e. RGB) may be provided along with the virtual object … within a layer scheme”. Thus, Applicant argument fails to clearly demonstrate differences between subject matter that is claimed and the teachings of Smithwick.
Still further, MPEP 2183 addresses the relationship between the prior art and the claimed invention with respect to Applicant’s specification, as oppose to one embodiment of the prior art to another embodiment of the prior art. For example [MPEP 2183]:
“Factors that will support a conclusion that the prior art element is an equivalent are:
(A) The prior art element performs the identical function specified in the claim in substantially the same way, and produces substantially the same results as the corresponding element disclosed in the specification. Kemco Sales, Inc. v. Control Papers Co., 208 F.3d 1352, 1364, 54 USPQ2d 1308, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (An internal adhesive sealing the inner surfaces of an envelope pocket was not held to be equivalent to an adhesive on a flap which attached to the outside of the pocket. Both the claimed invention and the accused device performed the same function of closing the envelope, but the accused device performed the function in a substantially different way (by an internal adhesive on the inside of the pocket) with a substantially different result (the adhesive attached the inner surfaces of both sides of the pocket)); Odetics Inc. v. Storage Tech. Corp., 185 F.3d 1259, 1267, 51 USPQ2d 1225, 1229-30 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 193 USPQ 449, 461 (Ct. Cl. 1977). The concepts of equivalents as set forth in Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products, 339 U.S. 605, 85 USPQ 328 (1950) are relevant to any ‘equivalents’ determination. Polumbo v. Don-Joy Co., 762 F.2d 969, 975 n.4, 226 USPQ 5, 8-9 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
(B) A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the interchangeability of the element shown in the prior art for the corresponding element disclosed in the specification. Caterpillar Inc. v. Deere & Co., 224 F.3d 1374, 56 USPQ2d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Al-Site Corp. v. VSI Int’ l, Inc., 174 F.3d 1308, 1316, 50 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Chiuminatta Concrete Concepts, Inc. v. Cardinal Indus. Inc., 145 F.3d 1303, 1309, 46 USPQ2d 1752, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 193 USPQ 449, 461 (Ct. Cl. 1977); Data Line Corp. v. Micro Technologies, Inc., 813 F.2d 1196, 1 USPQ2d 2052 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
(C) There are insubstantial differences between the prior art element and the corresponding element disclosed in the specification. IMS Technology, Inc. v. Haas Automation, Inc., 206 F.3d 1422, 1436, 54 USPQ2d 1129, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 41 USPQ2d 1865, 1875 (1997); Valmont Industries, Inc. v. Reinke Mfg. Co., 983 F.2d 1039, 25 USPQ2d 1451 (Fed. Cir. 1993). See also Caterpillar Inc. v. Deere & Co., 224 F.3d 1374, 56 USPQ2d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (A structure lacking several components of the overall structure corresponding to the claimed function and also differing in the number and size of the parts may be insubstantially different from the disclosed structure. The limitation in a means- (or step-) plus-function claim is the overall structure corresponding to the claimed function. The individual components of an overall structure that corresponds to the claimed function are not claim limitations. Also, potential advantages of a structure that do not relate to the claimed function should not be considered in an equivalents determination under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph).”
Applicant fails to consider MPEP 2123, wherein:
“‘The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.’ In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).
A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc. 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (reference disclosing optional inclusion of a particular component teaches compositions that both do and do not contain that component); Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361, 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522-23 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (The court held that the prior art anticipated the claims even though it taught away from the claimed invention. ‘The fact that a modem with a single carrier data signal is shown to be less than optimal does not vitiate the fact that it is disclosed.’).
…
Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). ‘A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use.’ In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (The invention was directed to an epoxy impregnated fiber-reinforced printed circuit material. The applied prior art reference taught a printed circuit material similar to that of the claims but impregnated with polyester-imide resin instead of epoxy. The reference, however, disclosed that epoxy was known for this use, but that epoxy impregnated circuit boards have ‘relatively acceptable dimensional stability’ and ‘some degree of flexibility,’ but are inferior to circuit boards impregnated with polyester-imide resins. The court upheld the rejection concluding that applicant’s argument that the reference teaches away from using epoxy was insufficient to overcome the rejection since ‘Gurley asserted no discovery beyond what was known in the art.’ Id. at 554, 31 USPQ2d at 1132.). Furthermore, ‘[t]he prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed….’ In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004).”
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments above fail to be persuasive.
The Examiner suggests that Applicant further narrows the subject matter of the “display medium” and/or “3D printed display matrix”, wherein voxels that are generated within a plurality three-dimensional grid layers are contained within the said layers (Spec.; [¶ 0028-0029]), the distinct bleaching rate (Spec.; [¶ 0024]), and/or the dynamic application of one or more photochromic compounds for distributing within a liquid media (Spec.; [¶ 0025]) or gel media (Spec.; [¶ 0026]) that makeup said layers. Thus, the Examiner suggests incorporating the subject matter within claim 6 and claim 11 or claim 6 and claim 13 within the independent claim 1; and, similarly incorporating the subject matter within claim 6 and claim 16 or claim 6 and claim 17 within the independent claim 14.
Lastly, the Examiner notices the manner in which the Specification creates voxels within a display volume (Spec.; [¶ 0039]), the absorbing compounds for preventing unwanted light (Spec.; [¶ 0031-0033 and ¶ 0040]), the use of film to establish contrast (Spec.; [¶ 0034]), and the use of lasers and mirrors to generate a voxel (Spec.; [¶ 0041-0042]). However, Applicant fails to distinguish their sought-after “display volume” from that of a LCD (in particular a liquid crystal layer, liquid crystal medium, or polymer of a liquid crystal display) or UV fluorescent multi-layer display. Furthermore, the Specification appears to disclose a more much more dynamic display volume, that can take a variety of liquid and/or gel substances and pair them with one or more photochromic compounds in order to establish a three-dimensional imagery using controlled light, than that of the current applied prior art; however, the claim language fails to clear differentiate from the teachings of the combined prior art as a whole.
Applicant argues (Remarks, Page 8, ¶ 3), that “Last teaches projecting UV light onto a solid phosphor screen (Abstract; para. 0026, 0039), and does not teach using a photochromic screen or an LCD screen. The device of Last works by using UV light to activate phosphors which will then glow and generate a visual display. (para. 0018) Therefore, Smithwick and Last are not in the same field, as the screens of Smithwick and Last do not comprise the same materials and do not have the same functionality.”
The Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s arguments fail to view the combination of prior art as a whole, wherein Smithwick and Last et al. (US PGPUB No. 20170357099 A1) both utilize and preform the function of projecting media to a screen. Moreover, Last et al. is relied on to teach subject matter in relation with a “UVA light source” as oppose to display materials. Applicant is remined that within a combination one or more items can be modified this includes display materials and light sources. Thus, Applicant fails to view the prior art and recited teaches within the Office Action, in view of the claimed subject matter.
Moreover, in response to Applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the Examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Smithwick is motivated to combine with Last et al., in order to provide the ultraviolet light (of Smithwick) in a manner that mitigates safety issues for a viewer (Last; [¶ 0030]).
Still further, in response to Applicant's argument that Smithwick in view of Last et al. is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of applicant’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, both Smithwick and Last et al. endeavor to present data using a display and light manipulation, as is Applicant’s field of endeavor.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments above fail to be persuasive.
Applicant argues (Remarks, Page 8, ¶ 4), that “The Office Action mischaracterizes the teachings of Zhong. Zhong does not teach a device or method using a photochromic compound; instead, Zhong teaches using a photoinitiator compound to trigger changes in an LCD panel (para.0055, 0057, 0061-0062), versus having a photochromic compound that will spontaneously change chemical structure when irradiated. See, e.g., https://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/photochromic, https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3- 642-29648-2_119, and https://www.photoinitiators-platform.org/about-photoinitiators/.”
The Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s arguments fail to view the broad nature of the claim language. Wherein, the claim language fails to incorporate the limitations of “spontaneously change chemical structure when irradiated”, instead the claim recites “… at least one display medium containing at least one photochromic compound”. In other words, the reaction of the photochromic compound in response to light is not clearly linked. Although, the photochromic compound is contained within the display medium and the display medium reacts to light by transitioning from a transparent state to a color state, the claim language is silent regarding the limitation of the photochromic compound causing said transition. Still further, Applicant defines the one or more possibility types of the photochromic compound as correspond to “derivatives” (Spec.; [¶ 0023]).
Additionally, Applicant fails to view the light changing compound within a LCD related with one or more polarizers, substrates, and polymerizable monomers (i.e. one or more layers) of the LCD as taught by Zhong et al. (US PGPUB No. 20160246085 A1)(Zhong; [¶ 0055, ¶ 0057. And ¶ 0061-0063]). More critically, the Zhong et al. is relied upon to teach the subject matter of at least one display medium containing at least one photochromic compound corresponding to a LCD containing at least one light sensitive/reactive layers/substrate. Applicant’s argument regarding the defemination of photochromic (Merriam-Webster; “… capable of changing color on exposure to radiant energy (such as light)” [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/photochromic]) fails to view how the one or more layers of the LCD change color on exposure to light (in part) (Zhong; “… through ultraviolet (UV) light irradiation or heating of a mixture of polymerizable monomers and liquid crystal molecules. The polymerizable monomers take a percentage of 10-50% in the mixture and have the characteristics of generating polymerization reaction to form a substance that is solid state of high molecular weight and has excellent transparency, which can be, but not limited to one of acrylic ester and the derivatives thereof, methacrylate ester and the derivatives thereof, styrene and the derivatives thereof, epoxy resin and fatty amine epoxy curing agents or a composition thereof.” [¶ 0061]; moreover, “UV light is used to irradiate the mixture of the polymerizable monomers and the liquid crystal molecules” [¶ 0062] in order to “… generating polymerization reaction to form a substance that is solid state … transparency” [¶ 0061], such that “… the liquid crystal drops 303 to coincide with the travel direction of the light in order to eliminate some of the scattering and thereby improving transparency. Correspondingly, the liquid crystal panel changes from the original obscure hazy condition to a transparent condition” [¶ 0063-0064]).
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments above fail to be persuasive.
Applicant argues (Remarks, Page 9, ¶ 2), that “Zhong is not in the same field as either Smithwick or Last, and also does not teach a photoinitiator compound. 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. Applicant’s arguments fail to view the combination as a whole. Wherein, in response to Applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the Examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, 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]).
Still further, in response to Applicant's argument that Smithwick in view of Last et al. and Zhong et al. is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of applicant’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, both Smithwickin view of Last et al. and Zhong endeavor to present data using a display and light manipulation, as is Applicant’s field of endeavor.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments above fail to be persuasive.
Regarding dependent claim(s) 3-5:
Applicant argues (Remarks, Page 9, ¶ 4), that “Further regarding 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. 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). 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. Applicant’s arguments fail to view the teachings of Zhong et al., wherein photochromic (Merriam-Webster; “… capable of changing color on exposure to radiant energy (such as light)” [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/photochromic]) compound corresponds to the teachings of the substrate comprising polymerizable monomers wherein color is change from a haze to a transparency, as addressed in more detail above.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments above fail to be persuasive.
Regarding dependent claim(s) 6:
Applicant argues (Remarks, Page 9, ¶ 5), that “Further regarding 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. Applicant’s arguments fail to view the combination as a whole, wherein Smithwick teaches a pixel/cell and Zhong et al. teaches a substrate, as addressed in more detail above.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments above fail to be persuasive.
Regarding dependent claim(s) 8:
Applicant argues (Remarks, Page 9, ¶ 6 to Page 10, ¶ 1), that “Further regarding 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 (Office Action pages 4, 7, 9-11). 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. 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 (¶ 0047) (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.
Furthermore, 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]).
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments above fail to be persuasive.
Regarding dependent claim(s) 11 and 16:
Applicant argues (Remarks, Page 9, ¶ 6 to Page 10, ¶ 1), that “Further regarding 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 11 and 15). 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. In 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.’); in 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.Il. 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, Applicant fails to view the teaches of the applied prior art. A projected light corresponds to a laser (Merriam-Webster; “… the beam of coherent radiation itself”, “… something resembling a laser beam in accuracy, speed, or intensity” [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/laser]). Wherein, light is a wave and is inherently pulsed.
Additionally, Applicant fails to view the teaching of a UV scanned laser (Smithwick; the UV light source or projector 230 takes the form of a UV scanned laser (e.g., UV laser operating to provide X-Y scanner) [¶ 0042]), wherein a X and Y axis is periodically scanned.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments above fail to be persuasive.
Regarding dependent claim(s) 7:
Applicant argues (Remarks, Page 11, ¶ 2), that “… Smithwick teaches that the embodiment of Fig. 5 is an electrowetting medium, and not a photochromic medium (para. 0047-0048, Figs. 5, GA-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.”
The Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s arguments fail to view the teachings within the prior art, 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.
Regarding dependent claim(s) 9, 15, and 19:
Applicant argues (Remarks, Page 11, ¶ 5), that “Regarding claims 9 and 15, the combination of Smithwick, Last and Zhong does not teach the independent claim as described above. Furthermore, Makinen also lacks photochromic material and is applied to LEDs (para. 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 the UV light directly (see para. 0232 and 0235).”
The Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s arguments fail to view the rejection as a whole, wherein Smithwick and Last et al. teaches the UV light subject matter. And, wherein Makinen et al. (US PGPUB No. 20200371378 A1) teaches at least one axisymmetric collimating optical assembly in relation with a display/projection environment (Makinen; [¶ 0104-0107 and ¶ 0130-0135]).
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments above fail to be persuasive.
Applicant argues (Remarks, Page 12, ¶ 1), that “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. And, wherein Makinen et al. teaches at least one rotating mirror comprises a parabolic mirror (Makinen; [¶ 0099, ¶ 0116, and ¶ 0206-0207]).
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments above fail to be persuasive.
Regarding dependent claim(s) 10-13:
Applicant argues (Remarks, Page 12, ¶ 4 to Page 13, ¶ 1), that “Regarding claims 10-13, the combination of Smithwick, Last and Zhong does not teach the independent claim as described above. Furthermore, regarding claims 10-13, 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 11 and 15). 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. In 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.II. 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. Applicant’s arguments regarding the independent claim are addressed above. Additionally, Applicant’s arguments fail to view that light is inherently pulsed given that it travels in a wave.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments above fail to be persuasive.
Applicant argues (Remarks, Page 13, ¶ 2-4), that “Also, the mirror elements of Smithwick reflect different wavelengths (IR and visible light) and do not explicitly teach that the mirror elements are rotatable (IR and visible Figs. 7A-C and para. 0052-0053) Smithwick teaches a beam splitter (para. 0019, 0042-0044 Figs. 3-4 part 360) but does not teach that the beam splitter is rotatable.
Furthermore, Koehler teaches a focal plane array (para. 0012 and claims 5, 19, and 23) that is a receiving array for the light/laser and does not teach that the laser output is arrayed.
Makinen cites MOEMS (micromirror array for scanning para. 0100) but does not teach using a pulsed laser.”
The Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s arguments fail to the rejection as a whole, wherein, Smithwick teaches a tunable mirror corresponding to rotatable mirror (Smithwick; “using tunable mirrors” [¶ 0052-0053]) in view of Makinen et al. teachings of a rotating mirror (Makinen; [¶ 0107-0109 and ¶ 0134-0135]). Although, there is a typographical error within term “turnable” as oppose to “tunable” within the Office Action, the tunable mirror is modifiable to incorporate the rotation of a mirror as taught by Makinen et al.
Additionally, Makinen et al. teaches both a laser/light output is arrayed and pulsation of a laser/light. Although, light is inherently pulsed given that it is a wave and moves in a wave pattern, light can be further manipulated in a pulsation pattern using a moving mirror. Moreover, a beam of light can be transmitted to different locations from a single source by way of switching (Makinen; [¶ 0109 and ¶ 0134-0135]). Furthermore, the laser/light output is arrayed as illustrated within Fig. 5 (Makinen; [¶ 0107-0109]).
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments above fail to be persuasive.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
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 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 pulsed UV laser (Smithwick; the at least one UV light source comprises at least one pulsed/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 pulsed 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 pulsed/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 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 UV laser beams (Makinen; at least one axisymmetric collimating optical assembly arranged to converge at least two of the at least two resulting UV laser beams [¶ 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 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 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, 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, 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, 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, Makinen, and Koehler discloses the device of claim 10, wherein the at least one pulsed UV laser is arranged to radiate at least one pulsed 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 pulsed/projected UV laser is arranged to radiate at least one pulsed/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 pulsed UVA laser (Last; at least one pulsed 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]).
Regarding claim 13, Smithwick in view of Last, Zhong, 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, 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]).
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:
Frayne et al. (US PGPUB No. 20170078655 A1),
Lippert et al. (US PGPUB No. 20210078253 A1),
Balanche et al. (US PGPUB No. 20110199658 A1), and
Yamaichi (US PGPUB No. 20150085069 A1).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
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, Kee M. Tung can be reached on (571) 272-7794. 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 2616
/CHARLES L BEARD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2616
Prosecution Insights