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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 36 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 36 and 64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James (WO Patent Publication Number 2018204982 A1) in view of Brychell (US Patent Publication Number 2010/0124074 A1).
James teaches, as claimed in claim 36, an optical device that, upon illumination (Fig. 2A-2C), exhibits one or more diffractive images dependent upon viewing angle (¶0010), said the optical device having a diffractive structure (Fig.4) comprising a plurality of grating regions (41-49 or 124 and 125), each grating region corresponding to a component of a respective diffractive image (i), wherein each grating region (123 and 125) comprises a plurality of grating elements (elements inside 123 and 125) arranged along a respective first direction such that each grating region (¶0029), upon illumination, exhibits a diffractive colour (R,G,B) such that the corresponding diffractive image is exhibited (¶0010), and wherein, for at least one diffractive image, the grating regions are arranged in accordance with a plurality of diffractive pixels of the corresponding diffractive image (Fig. 7a and 7b), each diffractive pixel being assigned a uniform colour (R,G,B ¶0048), and each grating region (123 and 125) covers a proportion of a diffractive pixel (i) corresponding to the proportion of the diffractive colour (R,G,B) of the grating region to be exhibited by the diffractive pixel such that the corresponding diffractive image is exhibited (¶0040) and wherein, at least one grating region covers the proportion of its respective diffractive pixel in accordance with a dithering arrangement. (¶0149 “images are shifted and/or cropped so that this point is in the same horizontal position in each image frame), James fails to teach a dithering arrangement generated by a dithering algorithm. In a related art, Brychell teaches an optical device teaches a dithering arrangement generated by a dithering algorithm (¶0008 “a dithered grayscale image, using a dithering algorithm such as Floyd-Steinberg” and ¶0037 “dithering algorithms include, but are not limited to, Floyd-Steinberg dithering, Jarvis, Judice, Ninke, Stucki, or Burkes”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical device, as taught by James, with the dithering algorithm, as taught by Brychell, for the purpose of providing a way so that darkness of the grayscale image is increasing with distance from the light source (¶0037).
Claims 64 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James (WO Patent Publication Number 2018204982 A1). in view of Uchida (EP Patent Number 3447546 A1).
James teaches, as claimed in claim 64, an optical device that, upon illumination (Fig. 2A-2C), exhibits one or more diffractive images dependent upon viewing angle (¶0010), said the optical device having a diffractive structure (Fig.4) comprising a plurality of grating regions (41-49 or 124 and 125), each grating region corresponding to a component of a respective diffractive image (i), wherein each grating region (123 and 125) comprises a plurality of grating elements (elements inside 123 and 125) arranged along a respective first direction such that each grating region (¶0029), upon illumination, exhibits a diffractive colour (R,G,B) such that the corresponding diffractive image is exhibited (¶0010), and wherein, for at least one diffractive image, the grating regions are arranged in accordance with a plurality of diffractive pixels of the corresponding diffractive image (Fig. 7a and 7b), each diffractive pixel being assigned a uniform colour (R,G,B ¶0048), and each grating region (123 and 125) covers a proportion of a diffractive pixel (i) corresponding to the proportion of the diffractive colour (R,G,B) of the grating region to be exhibited by the diffractive pixel such that the corresponding diffractive image is exhibited (¶0040) and wherein, at least one grating region covers the proportion of its respective diffractive pixel in accordance with a dithering arrangement. (¶0149 “images are shifted and/or cropped so that this point is in the same horizontal position in each image frame”), James fails to teach each grating region comprises at least 20 grating elements arranged along the respective first direction. James fails to teach wherein each grating region comprises at least 20 grating elements arranged along the respective first direction. In a related art, Uchida teaches wherein each grating region comprises at least 20 grating elements arranged along the respective first direction (¶0040 “800, 1500 and 110”).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical device, as taught by James, with the grating elements, as taught by Uchida, for the purpose of providing a diffraction grating display body that displays a color image by using diffraction gratings (¶0007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-12,15-19, 21, 24, 28, 30, 34, 43, 44 and 59 are allowed.
The prior art fails to teach all of the limitations of independent claim 1 and 43 which includes at least one grating region is elongate along the respective first direction by a ratio of at least 2 to 1 such that a ratio of a dimension of the at least one grating region along the respective first direction to a dimension of the at least one grating region along a direction orthogonal to the respective first direction is at least 2 to 1.
Regarding claims 3-12, 15-19, 21, 24, 28, 30, 34, 44 and 59.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOURNEY F SUMLAR whose telephone number is (571)270-0656. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4pm.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached on 571-272-2333. 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.
JOURNEY F. SUMLAR
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
30 January 2026
/SHARRIEF I BROOME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872