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
The amendment filed on 07/14/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 11 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.
Claims 1-4, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frayne et al. (2018/0188550, of record) in view of Liu et al. (2023/0028958).
Regarding claim 1, Frayne discloses an autostereoscopic display (Figure 19, 600, superstereoscopic image retroreflecting display) comprising: a light source configured to output light associated with a plurality of views (610, light source); a lenticular array optically coupled to the light source (640, lenticular lens), wherein each view of the plurality of views is directed in a different direction by the lenticular array ([0107]); a frame defining an optical volume optically coupled to the lenticular array (for exemplary purposes, at least Figure 4, plane of convergence/viewing area; [0042] teaches the convergence may be within any optical material for instance a lens or display volume), wherein the plurality of views are perceivable as a three dimensional image within the optical volume (at least Figure 4, [0042], [0107]); and an optical controller configured to block light transmission outside of a target region of the lenticular array (630, retroreflector module; [0061] teaches the retroreflector module may include light-altering treatments such as viewing angle restriction layers; alternatively, or in addition, [0087] teaches a microlouver privacy filter on the light source), wherein the optical controller is configured to reduce crosstalk associated with the lenticular array (Examiner notes that both the viewing angle restriction layer and microlouver privacy filter, by functional property, reduce at least some crosstalk since they block light at unwanted angles).
Frayne fails to teach wherein the optical controller comprises a patterned array of light blockers disposed within a filler, wherein the optical controller comprises an antireflective coating between the filler and the patterned array of light blockers. Frayne and Liu are related because both teach a display comprising an optical controller configured to block light.
Liu teaches a display comprising an optical controller (at least Figure 3A, 300, LCF – light control film), wherein the optical controller comprises a patterned array of light blockers (341, core) disposed within a filler (330, transmissive regions), wherein the optical controller comprises an antireflective coating between the filler and the patterned array of light blockers (342, AR-antireflection cladding layer).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Frayne to incorporate the teachings of Liu and provide wherein the optical controller comprises a patterned array of light blockers disposed within a filler, wherein the optical controller comprises an antireflective coating between the filler and the patterned array of light blockers. Doing so would allow for reduced unwanted reflection, thereby improving display quality.
Regarding claim 2, the modified Frayne discloses the autostereoscopic display of Claim 1, wherein the patterned array of light blockers comprises at least one of a baffle, a louver, a filter, a specular surface, or a diffraction element ([0087] teaches a microlouver privacy filter on the light source).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Frayne discloses the autostereoscopic display of Claim 1, wherein blocking light transmission outside of the target region comprises blocking light transmission for at least 5% of the area of the lenticular array ([0087] teaches a microlouver privacy filter on the light source, which is depicted in Figure 19 to be located between the light source and the lenticular lens, thus the microlouver privacy filter is interpreted to block light transmission for at least 5% of the area of the lenticular lens).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Frayne discloses the autostereoscopic display of Claim 1, wherein the target region comprises a target lenticule of the lenticular array ([0087] teaches a microlouver privacy filter on the light source, which is depicted in Figure 19 to be located between the light source and the lenticular lens, thus the microlouver privacy filter is interpreted to block light transmission between target lenticules).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Frayne discloses the autostereoscopic display of Claim 1, wherein the crosstalk associated with the lenticular array comprises a crosstalk between lenticules of the lenticular array (Examiner notes that the microlouver privacy filter, by functional property, reduces crosstalk between lenticules since [0087] teaches a microlouver privacy filter on the light source, which is depicted in Figure 19 to be located between the light source and the lenticular lens, and the function of a microlouver privacy filter is to block light at unwanted angles).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Frayne discloses the autostereoscopic display of Claim 1, wherein the optical controller comprises a privacy screen comprising a microlouver array ([0087] teaches a microlouver privacy filter on the light source).
Claims 5, 11-13, 15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frayne et al. (2018/0188550, of record) in view of Liu et al. (2023/0028958), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Adachi et al. (2008/0297908, of record).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Frayne discloses the autostereoscopic display of Claim 1, but fails to teach wherein blocking light transmission outside of the target region comprises blocking light transmission at lenticule boundaries of the lenticular array. The modified Frayne and Adachi are related because both teach a display comprising an optical controller configured to block light.
Adachi teaches a display wherein blocking light transmission outside of the target region comprises blocking light transmission at lenticule boundaries of the lenticular array (Figure 2, 2, light absorbing portions, are depicted to be at the boundary of each 1, light transmitting portion).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified Frayne to incorporate the teachings of Adachi and provide wherein the optical controller comprises a patterned array of light blockers, wherein blocking light transmission outside of the target region comprises blocking light transmission at lenticule boundaries of the lenticular array. Doing so would allow for reduction of unwanted light to be transmitted in both directions, thereby improving the image quality and contrast.
Regarding claim 11, Frayne discloses a display (Figure 19, 600, superstereoscopic image retroreflecting display) comprising: a light source configured to output light associated with a plurality of views (610, light source); a lenticular array optically coupled to the light source (640, lenticular lens), wherein each view of the plurality of views is directed in a different direction by the lenticular array ([0107]), wherein the plurality of views are perceivable as a three dimensional image (at least Figure 4, [0042], [0107]); and an array of light blockers ([0087] teaches a microlouver privacy filter on the light source).
Frayne fails to teach the array of light blockers disposed within a filler, wherein each light blocker is configured to block light transmission at a boundary of a lenticule the lenticular array; and an antireflective coating between the filler and the array of light blockers. Frayne and Liu are related because both teach a display comprising an optical controller configured to block light.
Liu teaches a display comprising an array of light blockers (at least Figure 3A, 341, core) disposed within a filler (330, transmissive regions); and an antireflective coating between the filler and the patterned array of light blockers (342, AR-antireflection cladding layer).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Frayne to incorporate the teachings of Liu and provide the array of light blockers disposed within a filler; and an antireflective coating between the filler and the patterned array of light blockers. Doing so would allow for reduced unwanted reflection, thereby improving display quality.
The modified Frayne fails to teach wherein each light blocker is configured to block light transmission at a boundary of a lenticule the lenticular array. The modified Frayne and Adachi are related because both teach a display comprising an array of light blockers.
Adachi teaches a display wherein each light blocker is configured to block light transmission at a boundary of a lenticule the lenticular array (Figure 2, 2, light absorbing portions, are depicted to be at the boundary of each 1, light transmitting portion).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified Frayne to incorporate the teachings of Adachi and provide wherein each light blocker is configured to block light transmission at a boundary of a lenticule the lenticular array. Doing so would allow for reduction of unwanted light to be transmitted in both directions, thereby improving the image quality and contrast.
Regarding claim 12, the modified Frayne teaches the display of Claim 11, wherein a pitch of the array of light blockers matches a pitch of the lenticular array (Adachi: at least Figure 2).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Frayne teaches the display of Claim 11, wherein the array of light blockers is mounted on a surface of the lenticular array (Adachi: at least Figure 2).
Regarding claim 15, the modified Frayne teaches the display of Claim 11, wherein the array of light blockers is mounted offset from a surface of the lenticular array (Adachi: at least Figure 3 depicts 2, light absorbing portions, are offset from the top surface of 1a, concave lens-like shape part).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Frayne discloses the display of Claim 16, but fails to teach wherein a separation distance between the array of light blockers and the surface of the lenticular array is between about 50µm and 1mm.
However, Examiner notes that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adjust the distance between the light blockers and the lenticular array to be from 50 micrometers to 1 millimeter, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233). Doing so would allow for adequate light control at a preset distance, thereby improving display quality at the preset distance.
Regarding claim 18, the modified Frayne teaches the display of Claim 11, wherein the array of light blockers is mounted between the light source and the lenticular array ([0087] teaches a microlouver privacy filter on the light source).
Claims 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frayne et al. (2018/0188550, of record) in view of Liu et al. (2023/0028958), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cossairt et al. (2006/0244918, of record).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Frayne discloses the autostereoscopic display of Claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the optical controller comprises a parallax barrier. The modified Frayne and Cossairt are related because both teach an autostereoscopic display.
Cossairt teaches an autostereoscopic display wherein the optical controller comprises a parallax barrier (Figure 13, 520, parallax slit barrier).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified Frayne to incorporate the teachings of Cossairt and provide wherein the optical controller comprises a parallax barrier. Doing so would allow for reducing aberrations and crosstalk.
Regarding claim 9, the modified Frayne discloses the autostereoscopic display of Claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the optical controller comprises a spatial light modulator offset from a surface of the lenticular array. The modified Frayne and Cossairt are related because both teach an autostereoscopic display.
Cossairt teaches an autostereoscopic display wherein the optical controller comprises a spatial light modulator offset from a surface of the lenticular array (Figure 6, 305, spatial light modulator, is offset from 320, lens array).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified Frayne to incorporate the teachings of Cossairt and provide wherein the optical controller comprises a spatial light modulator offset from a surface of the lenticular array. Doing so would allow for precise and dynamic control of the light beams generated to display, thereby improving display quality and efficiency.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frayne et al. (2018/0188550, of record) in view of Liu et al. (2023/0028958), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bradley (4,964,695, of record).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Frayne discloses the autostereoscopic display of Claim 1, but fails to teach wherein an index of refraction of the optical controller differs from an index of refraction of the lenticular array by at most 0.1. The modified Frayne and Bradley are related because both teach a display with an optical controller and lenticular array.
Bradley teaches a display wherein an index of refraction of the optical controller differs from an index of refraction of the lenticular array by at most 0.1 (col 3 lines 30-43 teach index matching the adhesive, light absorbing material, and material of the lenticular array, and furthermore the adhesive may be light absorbing).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified Frayne to incorporate the teachings of Bradley and provide wherein an index of refraction of the optical controller differs from an index of refraction of the lenticular array by at most 0.1. Doing so would allow for elimination of reflection, thereby improving the image quality.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frayne et al. (2018/0188550, of record) in view of Liu et al. (2023/0028958) in view of Adachi et al. (2008/0297908, of record) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Steenblik et al. (5,359,454, of record).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Frayne discloses the display of Claim 11, but fails to teach wherein each light blocker of the array of light blockers comprises ink. The modified Frayne and Steenblik are related because each teach a display comprising an array of light blockers
Steenblik teaches a display wherein each light blocker comprises ink (Figure 4, 34, dark zones; col 9 lines 10-15).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified Frayne to incorporate the teachings of Steenblik and provide wherein each light blocker comprises ink. Doing so would allow for reliable light absorption and reduction of unwanted light.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frayne et al. (2018/0188550, of record) in view of Liu et al. (2023/0028958) in view of Adachi et al. (2008/0297908, of record) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Woodgate et al. (2004/0240777, of record).
Regarding claim 19, the modified Frayne discloses the display of Claim 11, but fails to teach wherein the display is configured to correct for an optical aberration from the lenticular array. The modified Frayne and Woodgate are related because each teach an autostereoscopic display.
Woodgate teaches a display wherein the display is configured to correct for an optical aberration from the lenticular array ([0036] teaches use of aspherical lens shapes for the microlenses; Examiner notes aspherical lens shapes, by functional property, correct spherical aberration).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified Frayne to incorporate the teachings of Woodgate and provide wherein the display is configured to correct for an optical aberration from the lenticular array. Doing so would allow for improved image quality to be observed by correcting spherical aberration.
Regarding claim 20, the modified Frayne teaches the display of Claim 19, wherein the optical aberration comprises at least one of a coma, a spherical aberration, or a field curvature aberration (Woodgate: [0036] teaches use of aspherical lens shapes for the microlenses; Examiner notes aspherical lens shapes, by functional property, correct spherical aberration).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frayne et al. (2018/0188550, of record) in view of Liu et al. (2023/0028958), in view of Adachi et al. (2008/0297908, of record), as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Suzuki et al. (5,745,199, of record).
Regarding claim 21, the modified Frayne teaches the display of claim 11, wherein each light blocker in the array of light blockers comprises an opaque strip (Adachi: Figure 2, 2, light absorbing portions; Examiner interprets light absorbing including opacity).
The modified Frayne fails to teach wherein each light blocker is mounted parallel to a planar face of the lenticular array. The modified Frayne and Suzuki are related because each teach a display comprising an optical controller configured to block light.
Suzuki teaches a display wherein each light blocker is mounted parallel to a planar face of the lenticular array (at least Figure 3, 6, ray cut-off layers, are disposed parallel to a planar face of 1, first substance layer).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified Frayne to incorporate the teachings of Suzuki and provide wherein each light blocker is mounted parallel to a planar face of the lenticular array. Doing so would allow for efficient suppression of reflection of outer rays.
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 BALRAM T PARBADIA whose telephone number is (571)270-0602. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571) 272-2713. 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.
/BALRAM T PARBADIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872