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 .
Status of Claims and Application
This non-final action on the merits is in response to the election of invention received by the office on 23 September 2025. Claims 1-23 are pending. Claims 13-20 are withdrawn as non-elected.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 23 September 2025.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 23 September 2025. These drawings are ACCEPTABLE.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “sticky material” in claims 1, 21 and dependent claims 2, 3, 6-9, and 11 and is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “sticky” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 23 recites the limitation “pressurizing . . . in a vacuum state.” The specification as originally filed does not make clear what this limitation means. It admits of two possible interpretations. First, the phrase could be interpreted to mean that the claimed display panel and lens array substrate are held in vacuum. Alternatively, the phrase may be construed to indicate that the display panel and lens are held in vacuum and subjected to pressing forces. The specification as originally filed does not clarify this term in such a way that one of ordinary skill could be advised of the metes and bounds of this limitation.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the OCR" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 23 depends from claim 21, but the optically clear resin (OCR) is introduced in claim 22.
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(s) 1-7, 9, 11, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/0051109 to Lim et al. (‘109 hereafter) in view of U.S. Patent 4,588,261 to Harry G. Erhardt (‘261 hereafter) in view of U.S. Patent 3,484,972 to Ralph E Christman (‘972 hereafter).
Regarding claim 1, ‘109 teaches a method of manufacturing a stereoscopic image display device, the method comprising: disposing a transparent adhesive layer onto a top surface of a display panel (paragraph 0039); aligning the lens array substrate and the display panel by using a camera (Fig. 2 step S2); and joining the display panel and the lens array substrate by using the transparent adhesive layer (Fig 2 step S3). ‘109, does not teach a groove or a different adhesive material filling the groove.
In the related art of assembling image detectors incorporating lens arrays, ‘261 teaches forming a groove by etching an edge portion of a rear surface of a lens array substrate (Fig. 3 item 36) for the benefit of promoting bonding. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘109 with those of ‘261 for the benefit of forming a well-bonded stereoscopic display device. ‘109 in view of ‘261 does not teach a sticky material different from the adhesive material.
In the related art of aligning layers of laminates, ‘972 teaches that it is known to use weakly bonding adhesive materials to temporarily affix laminates while conducting alignments and then employing a strongly bonding adhesive once satisfactory alignment is achieved (C3L14-C3L27) for the benefit of achieving aligned laminate articles. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘109 in view of ‘261 with those of ‘972 for the benefit of fixturing layers of a laminated stereoscopic display while aligning.
Regarding claim 2, ‘261 teaches the method wherein the deposited sticky material layer protrudes from an unetched portion of the rear surface of the lens array substrate (Fig 4 item 38) for the benefit of promoting bonding. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘109 with those of ‘261 for the benefit of forming a well-bonded stereoscopic display device. ‘109 in view of ‘261 does not teach a sticky material different from the adhesive material.
Regarding claim 3, ‘109 teaches the method wherein aligning the lens array substrate and the display panel comprises: attaching the lens array substrate and the display panel to each other by using the sticky material layer (Fig 3 item S22, S23, paragraph 0064); determining whether the lens array substrate and the display panel are misaligned by photographing a lens in the lens array substrate and a pixel in the display panel by using the camera (Fig 3 Step S24, paragraph 0076); physically separating the display panel and the lens array substrate from each other and reattaching the display panel and the lens array substrate to each other when the lens array substrate and the display panel are misaligned (paragraphs 0075-0079).
Regarding claim 4, ‘109 teaches the method wherein aligning the display panel and the lens array substrate includes repeatedly attaching and separating the lens array substrate and display device until the lens array substrate and the display panel are aligned (paragraphs 0075-0079).
Regarding claim 5, ‘109 teaches the method wherein the lens array substrate includes lenticular lenses (paragraph 0015).
Regarding claim 6, ‘109 does not teach that the sticky material layer is of greater thickness than the transparent adhesive layer. However, since ‘261 teaches a groove, the combination of ‘109 with ‘261 necessarily teaches that the stick material layer is thicker than the transparent adhesive layer since the stick material layer must also fill the groove. It would have been obvious to combine ‘109 with ‘261 for the reasons set forth above.
Regarding claim 7, ‘109 teaches the use of a pressure sensitive adhesive (paragraph 0064) for temporarily affixing the lens array to the display panel in order to align them.
Regarding claim 9, ‘109 does not teach that the sticky material layer is weaker than the transparent adhesive layer. In the related art of aligning layers of laminates, ‘972 teaches that it is known to use weakly bonding adhesive materials to temporarily affix laminates while conducting alignments and then employing a strongly bonding adhesive once satisfactory alignment is achieved (C3L14-C3L27) for the benefit of achieving aligned laminate articles. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘109 in view of ‘261 with those of ‘972 for the benefit of fixturing layers of a laminated stereoscopic display while aligning.
Regarding claim 11, ‘972 teaches the method wherein an adhesive force of the permanent adhesive layer is greater than an adhesive force of the sticky material layer (C3L14-C3L27) for the benefit of achieving aligned laminate articles. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘109 in view of ‘261 with those of ‘972 for the benefit of fixturing layers of a laminated stereoscopic display while aligning.
Regarding claim 12, ‘261 teaches the method wherein the groove of the rear surface of the lens array substrate overlaps dead pixels of a pixel area of the display panel (C2L55-C2L64) for the benefit of forming an image collecting apparatus with a clear viewing area. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘109 with those of ‘261 for the benefit of forming a stereoscopic viewing panel with an unobstructed viewing area.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘109 in view of ‘261 in view of ‘972 as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent 5,756,572 to Sweet et al. (‘572 hereafter).
Regarding claim 8, ‘109 and ‘972 both teach a pressure sensitive adhesive. ‘109 in view of ‘261 in view of ‘972 does not teach PDMS as a pressure sensitive adhesive. In the related art of lamination, ‘572 teaches polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) pressure sensitive adhesive (C8L19-C8L36) for the benefit of using a pressure sensitive adhesive with excellent release characteristics. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘109 in view of ‘261 in view of ‘972 with those of ‘572 for the benefit of employing a good releasing pressure sensitive adhesive.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘109 in view of ‘261 in view of ‘972 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/0280342 to Robert P Wenz (‘342 hereafter).
Regarding claim 10, ‘109 in view of ‘261 in view of ’972 does not teach that the transparent adhesive layer is an includes an optically clear film. ‘109 does teach that the adhesive used is an acrylate. In the related art of lamination of displays, ‘342 teaches that acrylates are a common optically clear material (paragraph 0039) for the benefit of producing displays which reproduce images with acceptable fidelity. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘109 in view of ‘261 in view of ‘972 with those of ‘342 for the benefit of forming a stereoscopic display with acceptable image fidelity.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/0051109 to Lim et al. (‘109 hereafter) in view of U.S. Patent 4,588,261 to Harry G. Erhardt (‘261 hereafter) in view of U.S. Patent 3,484,972 to Ralph E Christman (‘972 hereafter).
Regarding claim 21, ‘109 teaches a method of manufacturing a stereoscopic image display device, the method comprising: disposing a transparent adhesive layer onto a top surface of a display panel (paragraph 0039); aligning the lens array substrate and the display panel by using a camera (Fig. 2 step S2); and joining the display panel and the lens array substrate by using the transparent adhesive layer (Fig 2 step S3). ‘109, does not teach a groove or a different adhesive material filling the groove.
In the related art of assembling image detectors incorporating lens arrays, ‘261 teaches forming a groove by etching an edge portion of a rear surface of a lens array substrate (Fig. 3 item 36) for the benefit of promoting bonding. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘109 with those of ‘261 for the benefit of forming a well-bonded stereoscopic display device. ‘109 in view of ‘261 does not teach a sticky material different from the adhesive material.
In the related art of aligning layers of laminates, ‘972 teaches that it is known to use weakly bonding adhesive materials to temporarily affix laminates while conducting alignments and then employing a strongly bonding adhesive once satisfactory alignment is achieved (C3L14-C3L27) for the benefit of achieving aligned laminate articles. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘109 in view of ‘261 with those of ‘972 for the benefit of fixturing layers of a laminated stereoscopic display while aligning.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘109 in view of ‘261 in view of ‘972 as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/0280342 to Robert P Wenz (‘342 hereafter).
Regarding claim 22, ‘109 in view of ‘261 in view of ’972 does not teach that the transparent adhesive layer is an includes an optically clear film. ‘109 does teach that the adhesive used is an acrylate. In the related art of lamination of displays, ‘342 teaches that acrylates are a common optically clear material (paragraph 0039) for the benefit of producing displays which reproduce images with acceptable fidelity. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘109 in view of ‘261 in view of ‘972 with those of ‘342 for the benefit of forming a stereoscopic display with acceptable image fidelity.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘109 in view of ‘261 in view of ‘972 as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of 2010/0009589 to Miyauchi et al. (‘589 hereafter) further in view of ‘342.
Regarding claim 23, ‘109 in view of ‘261 in view of ‘972 does not teach applying vacuum. In the same field of endeavor, forming laminate display panels, ‘589 teaches the method of wherein joining the display panel and the lens array substrate includes pressurizing the display panel and the lens array substrate in a vacuum state (paragraph 0056) for the benefit of pressing the panel components together with very even pressure. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘109 in view of ‘261 in view of ‘972 with those of ‘589 for the benefit of pressing the layers of the stereoscopic display together with even pressure. ‘109 in view of ‘261 in view of ‘972 in view of ‘589 does not teach a heat curing adhesive.
In the same field of endeavor, ‘342 teaches the method wherein the OCR is heated and cured and joins layers of a display panel (paragraph 0039) ) for the benefit of producing displays which reproduce images with acceptable fidelity. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘109 in view of ‘261 in view of ‘972in view of ‘589 with those of ‘342 for the benefit of forming a stereoscopic display with acceptable image fidelity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John P Robitaille whose telephone number is (571)270-7006. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at (571) 270-5516. 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.
/JPR/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/GALEN H HAUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743