DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/02/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 09/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues regarding the newly amended language of Claim 1: “In claim 1, step S2 has been amended to require that "the interval between adjacent two pixel-viewing-zones corresponding to different pixel groups is smaller than Dp along a second direction, and said pixel-viewing-zones are arranged along two directions," with parallel language added in step SS2 for sub-pixel-viewing-zones. The Specification teaches that, along the second direction, the viewing-zone interval is smaller than the pupil diameter Dp and that the claimed viewing-zones are arranged along two directions while being generated by one-to-one modulating elements at the pixel or sub-pixel level. In the annotated FIG. 10 of Liu, shown below, the self-carried viewing zones are shown between the red lines.”
Examiner first notes that the arguments are deficient, because (a) the arguments are submitted in black and white, and thus do not communicate to the examiner the red and the green markings. (b) Applicant fails to cite where “The Specification teaches …” According to Examiner’s own analysis, in Specification Paragraph 3, this feature appears to be gleaned from a prior art patent, and thus does not represent Applicant’s own invention. Finally, the mere observation, that Applicant calls the zones “pixel-viewing-zones” and that Liu calls certain example zones “self-carried viewing zones” that contain pixels, does not patentably distinguish over the prior art which performs substantively the same functions under substantively the same preferred conditions.
Examiner suggests claiming manufactured features of the display and structures that ensure the desired relationships of the viewing zones with the eyes of the viewer who is located at an arbitrary distance with respect to the display.
Applicant argues: “In the amended steps S2/SS2 of claim 1, the claimed adjacency constraint is expressly "smaller than Dp" along the second direction for the claimed pixel-viewing-zones (or sub-pixelviewing- zones) corresponding to different pixel groups. In Liu, by contrast, the reference explicitly defines its "small-interval viewing zones" and "large-interval viewing zones" with respect to the viewer's pupil diameter and further explains that multi-view display panels project "large-interval" self-carried viewing-zones along the line connecting the two eyes, i.e., along the interocular baseline. Thus, even where Liu discusses small-interval regimes, Liu's self-carried viewing-zones that underpin FIG. 10 are expressly the large-interval kind and are arrayed along a single direction associated with the binocular baseline.”
Examiner again notes that Applicant fails to cite the portions of Liu in the arguments, and where such terms are applied to Fig. 10 in Liu. Further, the argument does not appear to be directed to a reason for rejection that was cited in the Office Action. Finally, Applicant’s attention to large-interval zones in Liu does not negate the teachings of the small-interval zones in Liu, and does not address the specific reasons for rejection which cite other portions of Liu which teaches a substantively identical invention including the details in the dependent claims. Applicant argues: “The Examiner stated during the interview that adjacency in FIG. 10 evidences the claimed "smaller than Dp" spacing therefore rests on equating Liu' s Deye-eye construct with the claimed Dp, which the annotated FIG. 10 squarely dispels. Dp of the present application is the pupil's diameter (the short green line in the annotated FIG. 10). Liu' s Deye-eye is the distance between the two pupils (the long purple line). Those are different measures. The Office Action reads Liu's adjacency in FIG. 10 as if it proved gaps smaller than Dp; that only works if one confuses Liu' s purple Deye-eye baseline with Dp.”
Examiner notes that Applicant’s argument refers to evidence which is not on record. Liu Fig. 10 clearly illustrates a pupil which exhibits a diameter of the pupil corresponding to Dp, and the claims are rejected accordingly. Applicant’s heavy modifications of Liu Fig. 10 with annotations is Attorney opinion and does not replace the original Liu Fig. 10 as evidence; furthermore the colors are not visible in the submitted black and white documents. The arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.”). Finally, Applicant fails to present evidence that even if the relative dimensions were to be different from the prior art, they would produce improved or unexpected results, which is required to advance prosecution. See Claim Construction section below.
Applicant argues: “The amended steps S2/SS2 in claim 1 now require that the claimed pixel- or sub-pixelviewing- zones "are arranged along two directions." The present application implements this by pixel (or sub-pixel) one-to-one modulating elements that create asymmetric viewing-zones and place them in a two-direction arrangement to satisfy the sub-Dp spacing along the second direction while maintaining appropriate coverage along the first direction. Liu' s FIG. 10, in contrast, achieves its pattern by overlapping two independent one-dimensional distributions, selfcarried viewing zones and III-type viewing zones.”
Examiner notes that Applicant again fails to provide supporting citations. Specification paragraph 4 appears to be the only paragraph to describe the term “along two directions,” and it states that “two-dimensional images can be designed with a dense arrangement along the second direction, but a sparse arrangement along the first direction” which is exactly the example in Liu, Figs. 10, 11.
Applicant argues: “Liu' s own text confirms that its one-dimensional grating, which generates III-type viewing zones, operates at the level of "periodic unit[s]" spanning multiple pixels and that zone positions are translated by "resetting the pixels corresponding to each periodic unit," not by steering individual, per-pixel modulators as claimed.”
Examiner notes that grating and pixel zones are separate and distinct structures in Liu and the Specification. An example of a one dimensional grating does not contradict two-dimensional zones.
Applicant argues: “The Examiner relies on FIG. 10 to map each "block" to a "pixel" or to a claimed pixelviewing-zone. Applicants respectfully submit that this is not a reasonable reading of Liu. As explained above and shown by the annotated FIG. 10, those "blocks" are overlap cells of two one-dimensional zone sets (self-carried viewing zones and III-type viewing zones) and do not depict pixels at all.”
Examiner notes that Applicant’s attorney appears to provide a personal interpretation of Liu, Fig. 10 without consulting the text of Liu. Examiner notes that Liu sufficiently explains the two-dimensional nature of the pixel zones in Column 3, and illustrates various aspects in Figs. 10-14 which read directly on the claims.
Applicant further argues: “Takahashi does not teach shrinking the adjacency between adjacent viewing-zones below the pupil diameter along the second direction while arranging the claimed viewing-zones along two directions and implementing them at pixel/sub-pixel granularity with one-to-one modulators.”
Examiner notes that “shrinking” is not a function required by the present Specification or a problem cited in the prior art.
Claim Construction
Note that, for purposes of compact prosecution, multiple reasons for rejection may be provided for a claim or a part of the claim. The rejection reasons are cumulative, and Applicant should review all the stated reasons as guides to improving the claim language and advancing the prosecution toward an allowance.
Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed by a method claim, or by claim language that does not limit an apparatus claim to a particular structure. However, examples of claim language, although not exhaustive, that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim are: (A) “adapted to” or “adapted for” clauses; (B) “wherein” clauses; and (C) “whereby” clauses. M.P.E.P. 2111.04. Other examples are where the claim passively indicates that a function is performed or a structure is used without requiring that the function or structure is a limitation on the claim itself. The clause may be given some weight to the extent it provides "meaning and purpose” to the claimed invention but not when “it simply expresses the intended result” of the invention. In Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329, 74 USPQ2d 1481, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Further, during prosecution, claim language that may or may not be limiting should be considered non-limiting under the standard of the broadest reasonable interpretation. See M.P.E.P. 904.01(a); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 44 USPQ2d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Changes to the dimensions of prior art structures are considered obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular changes would produce non-obvious results. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) (the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device).
Also note: Changes to the shape of prior art structures are considered obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular changes would produce non-obvious results. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.); also see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 415, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Note that “duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced” In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Claims 1-14 recite “multiple modulating elements” a generic term [elements] modified by functional language but not modified by structure or a structural term and not naming a structure readily recognized by persons of skill in the art to perform the claimed function. The limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph, and shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification and equivalents thereof. Specification defines the structure of this claim term as: "modulating element of the modulating device is a nanoimprinted grating, or a holographic grating, or a meta surface structure." Specification, Paragraph 31.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This paragraph describes the treatment of admitted prior art. In describing an invention, Applicant must inevitably reference that which is known in the art as the basis for the invention, however it is important that the claims particularly point out and distinctly claim that which Applicant regards to be his own invention. See 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. A statement by an applicant in the specification or made during prosecution identifying prior art is an admission which can be relied upon for both anticipation and obviousness determinations, regardless of whether the admitted prior art would otherwise qualify as prior art under the statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. 102.
Claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11012673 to Liu (“Liu”) also cited in an IDS, in view of Applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”) as described in the Specification, and in view of US 20190377177 to Takahashi (“Takahashi”).
Regarding Claim 1: “A glasses-free light-field display method based on asymmetric light distribution of a projecting beam, wherein:
an optical system employed by the glasses-free light-field display method comprises a display device, a modulating device, and a control device connected to the display device, (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, the claimed method is limited to using the claimed device. Prior art teaches the use of such a device: “The multi-view display panel may be a display panel with each pixel having a micro-structure, such as a micro/nano grating or controllable micro mirrors, etc.,” indicating a modulating device comprising gratings or micromirrors, and a controlling device for controlling the grating or micro-mirrors. Liu, Column 6, lines 33-36. See construction under section 112 above.)
wherein the display device comprises a plurality of pixels or sub-pixels, the modulating device comprises multiple modulating elements which correspond to the pixels or sub-pixels of the display device in a one-to-one manner; (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, modulating elements can be embodied in a grating or mirrors. See Specification, Page 3 lines 4-15. Prior art teaches this: “The multi-view display panel may be a display panel with each pixel having a micro-structure, such as a micro/nano grating or controllable micro mirrors, etc.,” indicating a modulating device comprising a grating or a micromirror structure for each pixel. Liu, Column 6, lines 33-36.)
when each modulating element of the modulating device is assigned to each pixel of the display device in a one-to-one manner, the glasses-free light-field display method comprises following steps: (“The multi-view display panel may be a display panel with each pixel having a micro-structure, such as a micro/nano grating or controllable micro mirrors, etc.,” indicating a modulating device comprising a grating or a micromirror structure for each pixel. Liu, Column 6, lines 33-36.)
S1: each modulating element modulates a beam outgoing from or incident onto a corresponding pixel, such that the corresponding pixel projects a beam with an asymmetric projection angle, and the asymmetric projection angle results in an asymmetric light-distribution zone of light (“the inclination angle LJ 8 of the arraying direction of the viewing zones to the reference vertical direction satisfies arcsin (D pup,/D eye-eye)sabs( Ll 8 )smin( arcs in( (D pupa+( M-2 )/ Ll d)!Deye-eye ),it/4),” indicating an asymmetric projection angle. See Liu, Column 2, lines 60-65 and illustration of various viewing zones constrained by asymmetric projection angles in Figs. 4-7.
with an intensity larger than 50% of a maximum value on an observing plane; (“the viewer naturally focuses his/her each eye on the display plane which contains the light-intensity extremum [i.e larger than 50%] of each light beam along the propagating direction.” Liu, Colum 1, lines 60-62.)
wherein, the asymmetric light-distribution zone which is taken as a pixel-viewing-zone of the corresponding pixel has a size larger than Dp and smaller than Dpm along a first direction and smaller than Dp along a second direction, with Dp being a diameter of a pupil and Dpm being a minimum distance between two pupils of a viewer; (Liu illustrates this use in Fig. 10 (reproduced below) and Column 13, lines 56-64, which is substantively similar to the example in Specification, Fig. 5.)
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
S2: each modulating element modulates a projecting direction of the beam projected by the corresponding pixel, in order that all pixel-viewing-zones corresponding to at least two pixel groups intersect with the pupil on the observing plane, (For example, “A minimum M=4 represents the situation that two of four different perspective views are presented to each eye of a real viewer” Liu, Column 3, lines 23-26.. See the use illustrated in Liu, Fig. 10 (above).)
and the interval between adjacent two pixel-viewing-zones corresponding to different pixel groups is smaller than Dp along a second direction, and said pixel-viewing-zones are arranged along two directions; (As noted in Liu, Fig. 10 (above) and Fig. 11, the pixel viewing zones are arranged along two directions, and the border (line/zone) between the pixel zones is smaller than the diameter of the illustrated pupil of the viewer. See similarly in Liu, Fig. 14 and explanations of zone arrangements in Column 3.)
wherein, pixels of each pixel group are arranged throughout the display device, and two pixel-viewing-zones corresponding to two pixels of different groups for a same pupil are set with a non-zero distance along the second direction; (“"each projection pupil of the real viewer intersects with more than one viewing zones and the viewing zones intersected by different projection pupils of this viewer are absolutely different";” Liu, Column 3, lines 10-15. See the use illustrated in Liu, Fig. 10 (above).)
S3: the control device refreshes each pixel by a corresponding light information, which is a projection information of a target object along the beam projected by the pixel; (“(S6) refresh each group of pixels on the flat display 20 panel by the target three-dimensional scene's perspective view for the correspondent I-type viewing zone” Liu, Column 3, lines 20-22.)
or, when each modulating element of the modulating device is assigned to each sub-pixel of the display device in a one-to-one manner, the glasses-free light-field display comprises following steps: … SS1: each modulating element modulates a beam outgoing from or incident onto a corresponding sub-pixel, such that the corresponding sub-pixel projects a beam with an asymmetric projection angle, and the asymmetric projection angle results m an asymmetric light-distribution zone of light with an intensity larger than 50% of the maximum value on an observing plane; … wherein, the asymmetric light-distribution zone which is taken as a sub-pixel-viewing-zone of the corresponding sub-pixel has a size larger than Dp and smaller than Dpm along a first direction and smaller than Dp along a second direction, with Dp being the diameter of a pupil and Dpm being the minimum distance between two pupils of a viewer; … SS2: each modulating element modulates a projecting direction of the beam projected by the corresponding sub-pixel, in order that all sub-pixel-viewing-zones corresponding to at least two sub-pixel groups intersect with the pupil on the observing plane, … and the interval between adjacent two sub-pixel-viewing-zones corresponding to different sub-pixel groups is smaller than Dv along a second direction, and said sub-pixel-viewing-zones are arranged along two directions; … wherein, sub-pixels of each sub-pixel group are arranged throughout the display device, and two sub-pixel-viewing-zones corresponding to two sub-pixels of different groups for a same pupil are set with a non-zero distance along the second direction; … SS3: the control device refreshes each sub-pixel by a corresponding light information, which is a projection information of a target object along the beam projected by the sub-pixel.” (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, this element is claimed as an alternative requirement to the claim elements above, and thus an optional limitation. Thus, the claim is rejected for reasons stated for the “pixel” limitations of the claim above.
Cumulatively note: That prior indicates that a subpixel can be a basic display element for forming eye views. See Takahashi, Paragraph 9. Specification further indicates this as: “Obviously, a sub-pixel could also function as a basic display element, although a pixel was exampled as a basic display element in Patent No. US 11,012,673 B2.” in Specification, Paragraph 4.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to supplement the teachings of Liu to use a sub-pixel as a unit display element instead of a pixel, as taught in Takahashi and confirmed in AAPA, in order to present a group of display elements to each pupil of the viewer. AAPA, Specification, Paragraph 3 and similarly in Takahashi, Paragraph 9.
Finally, in reviewing the present application, there does not seem to be objective evidence that the claim limitations are particularly directed to: addressing a particular problem which was recognized but unsolved in the art, producing unexpected results at the level of the ordinary skill in the art, or any other objective indicators of non-obviousness.
Regarding Claim 2: “The glasses-free light-field display method based on asymmetric light distribution of the projecting beam according to claim 1,
wherein, when each modulating element of the modulating device is assigned to each pixel of the display device in the one-to-one manner, … centers of all pixel-viewing-zones corresponding to a same pixel group overlap and an overlapping region of the pixel-viewing-zones is taken as a viewing zone corresponding to the pixel group; (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, each group of pixels is assigned and directed by the modulating device to forms its own viewing zone, such that different groups of pixels are assigned to illuminate different viewing zones. Prior art also uses this definition: “(S6) refresh each group of pixels on the flat display panel by the target three-dimensional scene's perspective view for the correspondent I-type viewing zone.” Liu, Column 3, lines 20-22. And conversely, “with each pixel having a micro-structure, such as a micro/nano grating or controllable micro mirrors, etc., which directs lights from different group of pixels to different self-carried viewing zones” Liu, Column 6, lines 34-37.)
or when each modulating element of the modulating device is assigned to each sub-pixel of the display device in the one-to-one manner, centers of all sub-pixel-viewing-zones corresponding to a same sub-pixel group overlap and an overlapping region of the sub-pixel-viewing-zones is taken as a viewing zone corresponding to the sub-pixel group.” (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, this element is claimed as an alternative requirement to the claim elements above, and thus an optional limitation. Thus, the claim is rejected for reasons stated for the “pixel” limitations of the claim above. Cumulatively note: That prior indicates that a subpixel can be a basic display element as discussed in the reasons for rejection in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 3: “The glasses-free light-field display method based on asymmetric light distribution of the projecting beam according to claim 1, wherein, the optical system further comprises a directional backlight structure capable of projecting backlights to the display device along different directions under control of the control device.” (“The multi-view display panel may be a display panel with self-carried grating which directs light beams from different groups of pixels on the display panel to different self-carried viewing zones. … the optical element/elements providing sequentially and circularly incident light beams, such as several sequentially-turned-on-and-turned-off point-light sources and a convergent lens placed between the pointlight-sources and the display panel,” thus embodying a directional backlight structure for the display. Liu, Column 6, lines 20-24.)
Regarding Claim 4: “The glasses-free light-field display method based on asymmetric light distribution of the projecting beam according to claim 3,
wherein, a backlight provides an incident light to a pixel or a sub-pixel at an asymmetric divergence angle or an asymmetric convergence angle which makes the beam projected by the pixel or sub-pixel be with the asymmetric light-distribution zone of light (See application of directional structure to backlight in Claim 3. Further, when implementing the directional structure “the inclination angle LJ 8 of the arraying direction of the viewing zones to the reference vertical direction satisfies arcsin (D pup,/D eye-eye)sabs( Ll 8 )smin( arcs in( (D pupa+( M-2 )/ Ll d)!Deye-eye ),it/4),” indicating an asymmetric projection angle. See Liu, Column 2, lines 60-65 and illustration of various viewing zones constrained by asymmetric projection angles in Figs. 4-7.)
with an intensity larger than 50% of a maximum value on an observing plane; (“the viewer naturally focuses his/her each eye on the display plane which contains the light-intensity extremum [i.e larger than 50%] of each light beam along the propagating direction.” Liu, Colum 1, lines 60-62.)
Regarding Claim 6: “The glasses-free light-field display method based on asymmetric light distribution of the projecting beam according to claim 3,
wherein, when each modulating element of the modulating device is assigned to each pixel of the display device in the one-to-one manner, the step S3 further comprises: at M time-points of each time-period, the control device drives the directional backlight structure to project the backlight along M directions sequentially, for presenting M corresponding pixel-viewing-zones of each pixel, where M ≥ 2; … wherein, a group of pixels works as M different pixel groups with backlights along different directions; (“A minimum M=4 represents the situation that two of four different perspective views are presented to each eye of a real viewer when his/her projection pupils just intersect with two groups of four I-type viewing zones respectively on the viewing-zone plane; (S7) at different time-points, implement steps (S3) to (S6) repeatedly.” Liu, Column 3, lines 22-29.)
or, when each modulating element of the modulating device is assigned to each sub-pixel of the display device in the one-to-one manner, the step SS3 further comprises: at M time-points of each time-period, the control device drives the directional backlight structure to project the backlight along M directions sequentially, for presenting M corresponding sub-pixel-viewing-zones of each sub-pixel, where M ≥ 2; … or, a group of sub-pixels work as M different sub-pixel groups with backlights along different directions.” (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, this element is claimed as an alternative requirement to the claim elements above, and thus an optional limitation. Thus, the claim is rejected for reasons stated for the “pixel” limitations of the claim above. Cumulatively note: That prior indicates that a subpixel can be a basic display element for forming eye views as rejected in Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 7: “The glasses-free light-field display method based on asymmetric light distribution of the projecting beam according to claim 1, wherein each modulating element of the modulating device is a nanoimprinted grating, or a holographic grating, or a meta surface structure.” (“micro-structure, such as a micro/nano grating or controllable micro mirrors, etc.,” Liu, Column 6, lines 35-37.)
Regarding Claim 8: “The glasses-free light-field display method based on asymmetric light distribution of the projecting beam according to claim 1, wherein, when each modulating element of the modulating device is assigned to each pixel of the display device in the one-to-one manner, the pixel-viewing-zones corresponding to different pixels of a same pixel group are arranged in a misaligned manner.” (For example the viewing zones of the pixel groups in Liu, Fig. 10, where they are arranged but not aligned along the x or y axis or with respect to the axes of the eyes of the viewer.)
Regarding Claim 9: “The glasses-free light-field display method based on asymmetric light distribution of the projecting beam according to claim 1, wherein, when each modulating element of the modulating 10 device is assigned to each sub-pixel of the display device in the one-to-one manner, the sub-pixel-viewing-zones corresponding to different sub-pixels of a same sub-pixel group are arranged in a misaligned manner.” (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, this “sub-pixel” element is claimed as an optional / alternative element following the pixel claim element executed in Claim 1, and thus an optional limitation. Thus, the claim is rejected for reasons stated for the “pixel” limitations of the Claim 1 above. Cumulatively note, that this claim is also rejected for reasons stated for Claim 8, because prior indicates that a subpixel can be a basic display element and a substitute for a pixel, when forming eye views as rejected in Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 10: “The glasses-free light-field display method based on asymmetric light distribution of the projecting beam according to claim 1, wherein, the optical system further comprises a deflecting device configured to deflect the beams outgoing from or incident onto the display device under control of the control device.” (“3D display method of presenting more than one perspective views to each eye of the viewer … such as a micro/nano grating or controllable micro mirrors, etc., which directs [i.e. deflects] lights from different group of pixels to different self-carried viewing zones.” Liu, Column 5, lines 21-13 and Column 6, lines 33-37.)
Claim 12 is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 6 in view of the Claim 10 rejection.
Regarding Claim 13: “The glasses-free light-field display method based on asymmetric light distribution of the projecting beam according to claim 1, wherein, adjacent pixels or sub-pixels are designed with different orthogonal characteristics; … wherein, each pixel or each sub-pixel only emits light of corresponding orthogonal characteristics, and each modulating element is endowed with orthogonal characteristics same to that of the corresponding pixel or sub-pixel for blocking light of non-corresponding orthogonal characteristics.” (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, orthogonal characteristics of the modulating element can be embodied in a position of the grating orthogonally with respect to the viewing zones for blocking the pixels from reaching it and not orthogonally for pixels intended to be incident on the viewing zones. Prior art teaches such an example: “self-carried grating which directs light beams from different groups of pixels on the display panel to different self-carried viewing zones,” and by definition blocks light beams from non-corresponding groups of pixels from being incident of those viewing zones. See Liu, Column 6, lines 20-24. Also noteworthy, the light beams can also be sorted into viewing zones by use of “multiple sequentially and circularly incident light beams converging to different self-carried viewing zones,” or a combination of the techniques. Liu, Column 6, lines 25-27.)
Claim 14 is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 4.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH whose telephone number is (571)270-7940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thu. 9am - 8pm.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at (571)272-7383. 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.
/MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483