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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art document(s) submitted by applicant in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on 06/07/2023, 07/07/2024, and 10/04/2024 have all been considered and made of record.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 28, line 1: “guide din” should instead state “guided in”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-22 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.
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 18, these claims require “preferentially scattering out light guided in the second directional mode”. The term “preferentially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “preferentially” 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. Whose preference is it referring to? Is it a preference attributed to a material or interface? Does it mean that more light of the second directional mode is guided than the first directional mode? The examiner is assuming that “preferentially” means that the light is scattered out more so in the second directional mode than in any other directional mode. The examiner notes that this interpretation only requires one directional mode component to be higher than one other directional mode component and does not require it to be the largest component of all directional modes. Accordingly, claims 2-11, 13-17, and 19-22 are also rejected due to their ultimate dependency upon a rejected claim.
Regarding claims 2 and 13, the claim introduces “a” transverse component and “a” vertical component, but fails to clarify if these components are different or the same as the transverse and vertical components introduced in claim 1. Further, the claim fails to identify what aspect of the components is increasing and/or decreasing (respectively). The examiner is interpreting the claim to mean that the aforementioned component(s) are not required to be the same as the component(s) mentioned in claim 1. The examiner is also interpreting any positive or negative change (respectively) or net positive or net negative change (respectively) of the magnitude of the component as meeting the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, and 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nichol et al. in US 20210215857 A1 (hereinafter "Nichol").
PNG
media_image1.png
630
801
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 16: The examiner notes that angles Θ1, Θ2, α1, and α2 are not described in the prior art disclosure, but have been added for reference purposes in the rejection below.
Regarding claims 1 and 18, Nichol discloses a planar backlight (and a method of planar backlight operation as per claim 18; see Para. 193 which discloses that device 3400 is a light-emitting device and is thus interpreted as being operated when light is entered in the device) comprising:
a plate light guide configured to guide light along a length of the plate light guide as guided light (film-based lightguide 107 is interpreted as the plate light guide; the exemplary embodiment of Fig. 16 shows that light is guided along the length of 107 via core layer 601; see Para. 193 and annotated Fig. 16 above);
a global mode mixer extending along the plate light guide length (low angle directing feature 3503 is interpreted as the global mode mixer; see annotated Fig. 16 where 3503 extends in a line lengthwise along the bottom of 107), the global mode mixer being configured to convert a portion of the light guided in a first directional mode into light guided in a second directional mode (the interpreted global mode mixer is interpreted as being capable of converting a portion of the light guided in a first directional mode into light guided in a second directional mode since the low angle directing features redirect the light from a mode propagating in a first direction to a mode propagating in a second direction; see Annotated Fig. 16 and Para. 193; note Para 105); and
a scattering structure (light turning feature 3401 is interpreted as the scattering structure; see annotated Fig. 16 and Para. 115 which identifies light turning features include scattering features; note Para. 103 which describes Nichol’s light turning features used as the light extraction method from the core, as is exemplified by Fig. 16; note also Para. 215) configured to preferentially scatter out the light guided in the second directional mode from the plate light guide as emitted light (3401 is interpreted as being capable of preferentially scattering out the light guided in the second directional mode from the plate light guide as emitted light since 3401 can take the guided light from 3503 and emit the light out of the core layer 601; see Annotated Fig. 16 and Para. 193),
wherein the light guided in the first directional mode has a vertical component in the first directional mode (the angle α1 of Annotated Fig. 16 is interpreted as the vertical component of the light guided in the first directional mode) that is less than a respective vertical component of the light guided in the second directional mode (the angle α2 of Annotated Fig. 16 is interpreted as the vertical component of the light guided in the second directional mode; Para. 193 states:
“First light 3409 reflects from a low angle directing feature 3503 to a second angle in the core layer 601 of the lightguide smaller than the incident angle by an average total angle of deviation of less than 20 degrees (Emphasis added).”
This is shown with Θ1 and Θ2 where Θ2 is smaller than Θ1. Θ1+α1 form a right angle and must equal 90° due to the orthogonality between the thickness direction and the direction identified as orthogonal per Annotated Fig. 16. Θ2+α2 also form a right angle and must equal 90°. Since Θ2 is smaller than Θ1, α2 is necessarily larger than α1 in order to maintain the right angle, or inversely, α1 is less than α2 and thus is interpreted as meeting the claim language. To state it succinctly, the guided light is composed of a transverse vector and a vertical vector and interaction with the interpreted global mode mixer results in a decrease in the transverse vector and an increase in the vertical vector thus allowing the input light in the transverse direction to be redirected in a more vertical direction, usually to aid in light emission).
Regarding claims 2 and 19, Nichol discloses the planar backlight of Claim 1 as discussed above (and the method of planar backlight operation of Claim 18 as discussed above), wherein the global mode mixer is configured to convert the guided light portion in the first directional mode into guided light in the second directional mode (see the rejection of claim 1) comprising one or both of decreasing a transverse component of the guided light portion and increasing a vertical component of the guided light portion (since the interpreted global mode mixer reduces the transverse vector of the guided light and increases the vertical vector of the guided light after interaction with said global mode mixer (see the rejection of claim 1), then the transverse and vertical vectors aforementioned are interpreted as the transverse and vertical components of claim 2 respectively).
Regarding claim 3, Nichol discloses the planar backlight of Claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the global mode mixer is disposed on a surface of the plate light guide (see Annotated Fig. 16 where the interpreted global mode mixer 3503 is disposed on a surface).
Regarding claim 4, Nichol discloses the planar backlight of Claim 3 as discussed above, wherein the scattering structure is disposed on a surface of the plate light guide opposite to the surface on which the global mode mixer is disposed (see Annotated Fig. 16 where the interpreted scattering structure 3401 is disposed on a surface opposite the afore-identified surface).
Regarding claims 6 and 20, Nichol discloses the planar backlight of Claim 1 as discussed above (and the method of planar backlight operation of Claim 18 as discussed above), wherein the global mode mixer (3503) comprises a reflective element (Para. 193 states “[f]irst light 3409 reflects from a low angle directing feature 3503” which implies that 3503 is a reflective element; additionally, the core layer 601 guides light via total internal reflection as a whole along the lower surface 3413 meaning that the entire surface of 3413 including 3503 is reflective) having a reflective facet aligned parallel to a propagation direction of the guided light along the plate light guide length (the flat surface on 3413 between the low angle directing features 3503 is also interpreted as being a part of the global mode mixer. When light is collimated, these flat surfaces would be reflective facets aligned to the propagation direction. Alternatively, each reflective facet 3503 is aligned with another reflective facet 3503 and it is this alignment that is interpreted as parallel to the propagation direction of the collimated light; Para. 108 discloses that the guided light that enters the system is “collimated in a plane perpendicular to the thickness direction of the lightguide” wherein the initial propagation direction (i.e., before interaction with the interpreted global mode mixer) is also the collimated light direction).
Regarding claims 7 and 21, Nichol discloses the planar backlight of Claim 1 as discussed above (and the method of planar backlight operation of Claim 18 as discussed above), wherein the scattering structure comprises an array of scattering elements spaced apart from one another along the plate light guide length (3401 are interpreted as spaced apart from one another along the plate light guide length; see annotated Fig. 16 where gaps occur between individual 3401), the global mode mixer (3503) being distributed between spaced-apart scattering elements of the scattering element array (the collection of 3401 is interpreted as the scattering element array; at least one interpreted global mode mixer exists and is interpreted as being distributed between the left-most and right-most interpreted scattering elements 3401 of the array; see annotated Fig. 16 below; the examiner notes that the scattering structure and global mode mixer are not required to be on or along the same surface; the examiner also notes that no particular order is required between adjacent elements, for example, an element of the global mode mixer adjacently alternating with a scattering element in a particular pattern such as A-B-A-B-A-B-A-B).
PNG
media_image2.png
308
609
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Nichol discloses the planar backlight of Claim 7 as discussed above, wherein a scattering element of the scattering element array comprises a plurality of scattering sub-elements (individual 3401 is interpreted as an individual scattering sub-element; the interpreted array necessarily contains a plurality of the sub-elements), the global mode mixer (3503) further being distributed within the scattering element between scattering sub-elements of the scattering sub-element plurality (the global mode mixer is interpreted as being distributed within the left-most interpreted scattering element between scattering sub-elements; see the additional annotation of Fig. 16 provided above).
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) 5, 9-10, 12-16, 20 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nichol et al. in US 20210215857 A1 (hereinafter "Nichol") as applied above.
Regarding claims 5 and 20, Nichol discloses the planar backlight of Claim 1 as discussed above (and the method of planar backlight operation of Claim 18 as discussed above), but fails to teach that the global mode mixer in the exemplary embodiment of Figure 16 comprises a diffraction grating extending across a width and along the length of the plate light guide, diffractive features of the diffraction grating being aligned parallel to a propagation direction of the guided light along the plate light guide length.
However, Nichol teaches that the interpreted global mode mixer (3503) are “low angle directing features”. A portion of Para. 105 states:
“As used herein, low angle directing features are refractive, total internal reflection, diffractive, or scattering surfaces, features, or interfaces that redirect light propagating within a totally internally reflecting lightguide at a first angle to the thickness direction of the film in the core region of the lightguide to a second angle in the core region of the lightguide smaller than the first angle by an average total angle of deviation of less than 20 degrees.”
In the case where the low angle directing features are diffractive/diffracting, then Para. 111-112 apply, specifically teaches:
“…low angle directing features defined by an arrangement of diffractive features or surfaces wherein light passing through the features or surfaces is diffracted… In one embodiment, the pitch, size, length size, depth, or angle of the one or more diffractive features or surfaces varies in a first direction from the first side of the light emitting region to the opposite side in the direction of light propagation within the light emitting region. For example, in one embodiment, the core region of the lightguide in the light emitting region comprises diffraction gratings with a repeating array of first, second, and third pitches configured to diffract the average angle of incident light into average total angle deviations less than 20 degrees for blue, green, and red light, respectively.”
Para. 215 identifies that the devices and components of various embodiments are usable together. Thus, Nichol suggests that it would be obvious to have combined the teachings above with the exemplary embodiment of the device of claim 1, such that:
wherein the global mode mixer comprises a diffraction grating (Para. 111) extending across a width (the thickness direction of Annotated Fig. 16 is interpreted as the width direction) and along the length of the plate light guide (the interpreted globe mixer and its components including the diffraction grating, necessarily has a width, thickness, and height within, across, and along the plate light guide in all three coordinate planes), diffractive features (necessarily present) of the diffraction grating being aligned parallel to a propagation direction of the guided light along the plate light guide length (Para. 108 discloses that the guided light that enters the system is “collimated in a plane perpendicular to the thickness direction of the lightguide”; since the diffractive features are aligned along the direction orthogonal to the thickness direction, the diffraction grating and its features are interpreted as being aligned parallel to the initial propagation direction (i.e., before interaction with the interpreted global mode mixer), which is also the collimated light direction).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the diffraction grating as the low angle directing feature of the interpreted global mode mixer as taught by Nichol for the purpose of providing flexibility and customization regarding the light distribution within and emitting from the light guide thereby achieving design versatility and increasing control over optical performance.
Regarding claims 9 and 22, Nichol discloses the planar backlight of Claim 7 as discussed above, wherein scattering elements of the scattering element array (the collection of 3401) comprise multibeam elements (scattering naturally produces multiple light beams diverging in various directions and thus 3401 is also interpreted as multibeam elements), each multibeam element being configured to scatter out the guided light in the second directional mode from the plate light guide as the emitted light comprising directional light beams having directions corresponding to view directions of views of a multiview image (each direction that the scattered light beams are emitted from the light guide is interpreted as a view direction where the collection of light beams results in a collection of viewpoints and is thus interpreted as creating a multi-view image; note Para. 54 which identifies that emitted light has directional components; claim 9); and
the method of the planar backlight operation further comprising:
modulating the directional light beams of the emitted light to provide the multiview image (spatial light modulator would necessarily be capable of modulating the directional light beams of the emitted light to provide the multiview image; see Para. 193 which discuss spatial light modulation with respect to the exemplary embodiment of Fig. 16; note Para. 172 and 216; claim 22).
Regarding claim 10, Nichol discloses the planar backlight of Claim 9 as discussed above, wherein each multibeam element comprises one or more of a diffraction grating, a micro-reflective element, and a micro-refractive element (light turning feature 3401 is identified as being reflective in Para. 193, but fails to explicitly teach that 3401 is micro; however, Para. 119 suggests sizes of light turning features on the order of microns). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the selected the size of the light turning feature on the order of microns since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
PNG
media_image3.png
630
801
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Nichol discloses a multiview backlight comprising:
a plate light guide configured to guide light as guided light (film-based lightguide 107 is interpreted as the plate light guide; the exemplary embodiment of Fig. 16 shows that light is guided along the length of 107 via core layer 601; see Para. 193 and annotated Fig. 16 above);
an array of multibeam elements disposed along a length of the plate light guide (light turning features 3401 are interpreted as multibeam elements because they can scatter light into multiple beams since scattering naturally produces multiple light beams diverging in various directions; exemplary Fig. 16 shows that they are disposed along a length of the light guide; a multitude of 3401 is interpreted as an array; see annotated Fig. 16), each multibeam element being configured to scatter the guided light out of the plate light guide as emitted light comprising directional light beams having directions corresponding to directions of different views of a multiview image (3401 is interpreted as being capable of scattering out the guided light out of the plate light guide as emitted light since 3401 can take the guided light from 3503 and emit the light out of the core layer 601; see Annotated Fig. 16 and Para. 193; each direction that the scattered light beams are emitted from the light guide is interpreted as a view direction where the collection of light beams results in a collection of viewpoints and is thus interpreted as creating a multi-view image; note Para. 54 which identifies that emitted light has directional components); and
a global mode mixer (low angle directing feature 3503 is interpreted as the global mode mixer) distributed between multibeam elements of the multibeam element array (the collection of 3401 is interpreted as the multibeam element array; at least one interpreted global mode mixer exists and is interpreted as being distributed between the left-most and right-most interpreted multibeam elements 3401 of the array; the examiner notes that the multibeam array and global mode mixer are not required to be on or along the same surface; the examiner also notes that no particular order is required between adjacent elements, for example, an element of the global mode mixer adjacently alternating with a multibeam element in a particular pattern such as A-B-A-B-A-B-A-B), the global mode mixer being configured to convert light guided according to a first directional mode into light guided according to a second directional mode (the interpreted global mode mixer is interpreted as being capable of converting a portion of the light guided in a first directional mode into light guided in a second directional mode since the low angle directing features redirect the light from a mode propagating in a first direction to a mode propagating in a second direction; see Annotated Fig. 16 and Para. 193; note Para 105),
wherein each multibeam element is configured to preferentially scatter out light guided according to the second directional mode relative to light guided according to the first directional mode (3401 is interpreted as being capable of preferentially scattering out the light guided in the second directional mode from the plate light guide as emitted light since 3401 can take the guided light from 3503 and emit the light out of the core layer 601; see Annotated Fig. 16 and Para. 193).
Regarding claim 13, Nichol discloses the multiview backlight of Claim 12 as discussed above, wherein light guided according to the first directional mode comprises light having one or both of:
a transverse component that is greater than a transverse component of light guided according to the second directional mode; and
a vertical component (the angle α1 of Annotated Fig. 16 is interpreted as the vertical component of the light guided in the first directional mode) that is less than a vertical component of light guided according to the second directional mode (the angle α2 of Annotated Fig. 16 is interpreted as the vertical component of the light guided in the second directional mode; Para. 193 states:
“First light 3409 reflects from a low angle directing feature 3503 to a second angle in the core layer 601 of the lightguide smaller than the incident angle by an average total angle of deviation of less than 20 degrees (Emphasis added).”
This is shown with Θ1 and Θ2 where Θ2 is smaller than Θ1. Θ1+α1 form a right angle and must equal 90° due to the orthogonality between the thickness direction and the direction identified as orthogonal per Annotated Fig. 16. Θ2+α2 also form a right angle and must equal 90°. Since Θ2 is smaller than Θ1, α2 is necessarily larger than α1 in order to maintain the right angle, or inversely, α1 is less than α2 and thus is interpreted as meeting the claim language. To state it succinctly, the guided light is composed of a transverse vector and a vertical vector and interaction with the interpreted global mode mixer results in a decrease in the transverse vector and an increase in the vertical vector thus allowing the input light in the transverse direction to be redirected in a more vertical direction, usually to aid in light emission),
wherein the global mode mixer is configured to convert light guided according to the first directional mode into light guided according to the second directional mode (the interpreted global mode mixer is interpreted as being capable of converting a portion of the light guided in a first directional mode into light guided in a second directional mode since the low angle directing features redirect the light from a mode propagating in a first direction to a mode propagating in a second direction; see Annotated Fig. 16 and Para. 193; note Para 105) comprising one or both of decreasing a transverse component and increasing a vertical component of the guided light (since the interpreted global mode mixer reduces the transverse vector of the guided light and increases the vertical vector of the guided light after interaction with said global mode mixer, then the transverse and vertical vectors aforementioned are interpreted as the transverse and vertical components of claim 2 respectively).
Regarding claim 14, Nichol discloses the multiview backlight of Claim 12 as discussed above, wherein global mode mixer is disposed on a surface of the plate light guide (see Annotated Fig. 16 where the interpreted global mode mixer 3503 is disposed on a surface), the multibeam element array (3401) being disposed adjacent to the surface on which the global mode mixer is disposed (3401 is on a different surface of the light guide than 3503 and thus the surfaces and their respective components are interpreted as being disposed adjacent to each other).
Regarding claim 15, Nichol discloses the multiview backlight of Claim 12 as discussed above, but fails to teach that the global mode mixer comprises a diffraction grating extending across a width and along the length of the plate light guide between multibeam elements of the multibeam element array, diffractive features of the diffraction grating being aligned parallel to a propagation direction of the guided light along the plate light guide length.
However, Nichol teaches that the interpreted global mode mixer (3503) are “low angle directing features”. A portion of Para. 105 states:
“As used herein, low angle directing features are refractive, total internal reflection, diffractive, or scattering surfaces, features, or interfaces that redirect light propagating within a totally internally reflecting lightguide at a first angle to the thickness direction of the film in the core region of the lightguide to a second angle in the core region of the lightguide smaller than the first angle by an average total angle of deviation of less than 20 degrees.”
In the case where the low angle directing features are diffractive/diffracting, then Para. 111-112 apply, specifically teaches:
“…low angle directing features defined by an arrangement of diffractive features or surfaces wherein light passing through the features or surfaces is diffracted… In one embodiment, the pitch, size, length size, depth, or angle of the one or more diffractive features or surfaces varies in a first direction from the first side of the light emitting region to the opposite side in the direction of light propagation within the light emitting region. For example, in one embodiment, the core region of the lightguide in the light emitting region comprises diffraction gratings with a repeating array of first, second, and third pitches configured to diffract the average angle of incident light into average total angle deviations less than 20 degrees for blue, green, and red light, respectively.”
Para. 215 identifies that the devices and components of various embodiments are usable together. Thus, Nichol suggests that it would be obvious to have combined the teachings above with the exemplary embodiment of the device of claim 1, such that:
wherein the global mode mixer comprises a diffraction grating (Para. 111) extending across a width and along the length of the plate light guide (the thickness direction of Annotated Fig. 16 is interpreted as the width direction) and along the length of the plate light guide (the interpreted globe mixer and its components including the diffraction grating, necessarily has a width, thickness, and height and within, across, and along the plate light guide in all three coordinate planes) between multibeam elements of the multibeam element array (the interpreted global mode mixer is already between interpreted multibeam elements of the multibeam element array as per claim 12), diffractive features (necessarily present) of the diffraction grating being aligned parallel to a propagation direction of the guided light along the plate light guide length (Para. 108 discloses that the guided light that enters the system is “collimated in a plane perpendicular to the thickness direction of the lightguide”; since the diffractive features are aligned along the direction orthogonal to the thickness direction, the diffraction grating and its features are interpreted as being aligned parallel to the initial propagation direction (i.e., before interaction with the interpreted global mode mixer), which is also the collimated light direction).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the diffraction grating as the low angle directing feature of the interpreted global mode mixer as taught by Nichol for the purpose of providing flexibility and customization regarding the light distribution within and emitting from the light guide thereby achieving design versatility and increasing control over optical performance.
Regarding claim 16, Nichol discloses the multiview backlight of Claim 12 as discussed above, wherein the global mode mixer (3503) comprises one or both of a reflective element and a refractive element (Para. 193 states “[f]irst light 3409 reflects from a low angle directing feature 3503” which implies that 3503 is a reflective element; additionally, the core layer 601 guides light via total internal reflection as a whole along the lower surface 3413 meaning that the entire surface of 3413 including 3503 is reflective), the reflective element having a reflective facet aligned parallel to a propagation direction of the guided light along the plate light guide length (the flat surface on 3413 between the low angle directing features 3503 is also interpreted as being a part of the global mode mixer. When light is collimated, these flat surfaces would be reflective facets aligned to the propagation direction. Alternatively, each reflective facet 3503 is aligned with another reflective facet 3503 and it is this alignment that is interpreted as parallel to the propagation direction of the collimated light; Para. 108 discloses that the guided light that enters the system is “collimated in a plane perpendicular to the thickness direction of the lightguide” wherein the initial propagation direction (i.e., before interaction with the interpreted global mode mixer) is also the collimated light direction), the global mode mixer extending across a width (the thickness direction of Annotated Fig. 16 is interpreted as the width direction) and along the length of the plate light guide (the interpreted globe mixer necessarily has a width, thickness, and height within, across, and along the plate light guide in all three coordinate planes) between multibeam elements of the multibeam element array (see the rejection of claim 12).
Claim(s) 11 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nichol et al. in US 20210215857 A1 (hereinafter "Nichol") as applied above, and in view of Aieta et al. in US 20190155105 A1 (hereinafter "Aieta").
Regarding claim 11, Nichol discloses a multiview display comprising the planar backlight of Claim 9 as discussed above, but fails to teach the multiview display further comprising an array of light valves configured to modulate the directional light beams of the emitted light to provide the multiview image, wherein the multibeam elements (3401) have a size that is between twenty-five percent and two hundred percent of a size of a light valve of the light valve array.
Nichol does teach that the exemplary embodiment of Fig. 16 involves reflective spatial light modulator 3408. Para. 142 and 164 teach that liquid crystal layers can act as the spatial light modulator. Liquid crystal is interpreted as an array of light valves since it controls how much light leaves the system via an array of voltage-controlled particles. Liquid crystal used as the reflective spatial light modulator of Fig. 16 would thus be capable of modulating the directional light beams of the emitted light to provide the multiview image since it reorients the direction of light beams passing through.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the selected liquid crystal as the reflective spatial light modulator for the purpose of keeping power consumption low thereby achieving a more cost-effective device.
Aieta teaches that the multibeam elements have a size that is between twenty-five percent and two hundred percent of a size of a sub-pixel (see Para. 60 which teaches 50% to 200%) and that a sub-pixel have a comparable size to a light valve of the light valve array (see Para. 62 and 64-65) including a one-to-one ratio (see Para. 65 in particular). This suggests that the ratio of the multibeam elements and the sub-pixel may also be applied to the ratio of the multibeam elements and the light valves to result in an overall teaching of the multibeam elements having a size that is between twenty-five percent and two hundred percent of a size of the light valves.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the sizes of Aieta in the device of Nichol since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 17, Nichol discloses the multiview display comprising the multiview backlight of Claim 12 as discussed above, but fails to teach the multiview display further comprising an array of light valves configured to modulate the directional light beams of the emitted light to provide the multiview image, wherein the multibeam elements have a size that is between twenty-five percent and two hundred percent of a size of a light valve of the light valve array.
Nichol does teach that the exemplary embodiment of Fig. 16 involves reflective spatial light modulator 3408. Para. 142 and 164 teach that liquid crystal layers can act as the spatial light modulator. Liquid crystal is interpreted as an array of light valves since it controls how much light leaves the system via an array of voltage-controlled particles. Liquid crystal used as the reflective spatial light modulator of Fig. 16 would thus be capable of modulating the directional light beams of the emitted light to provide the multiview image since it reorients the direction of light beams passing through.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the selected liquid crystal as the reflective spatial light modulator for the purpose of keeping power consumption low thereby achieving a more cost-effective device.
Aieta teaches that the multibeam elements have a size that is between twenty-five percent and two hundred percent of a size of a sub-pixel (see Para. 60 which teaches 50% to 200%) and that a sub-pixel have a comparable size to a light valve of the light valve array (see Para. 62 and 64-65) including a one-to-one ratio (see Para. 65 in particular). This suggests that the ratio of the multibeam elements and the sub-pixel may also be applied to the ratio of the multibeam elements and the light valves to result in an overall teaching of the multibeam elements having a size that is between twenty-five percent and two hundred percent of a size of the light valves.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the sizes of Aieta in the device of Nichol since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Conclusion
This prior art, made of record, but not relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure since the following references have similar structure and/or use similar structure and/or similar optical elements to what is disclosed and/or claimed in the instant application:
US 7004610 B2 discloses a similar display with effective means for enabling continuous and easy mode conversion control.
US 20160265746 A1 discloses a similar display where light in a mode is converted into light propagating in a particular direction and can thus be output from a waveguide.
US 20170192152 A1 discloses a similar display with different surface emitting patterns.
US 20190369323 A1 discloses a similar display with different surface emitting patterns.
US 20130114300 A1 discloses a similar display with different surface emitting patterns.
US 20180160107 A1 discloses a similar display with different surface emitting patterns, see Fig. 9.
US 20170272739 A1 discloses an autostereoscopic display and discusses global modes.
US 20080273242 A1 discloses a similar display.
US 20200218011 A1 discloses a similar display.
US 20140071653 A1 discloses a similar display including diffuse reflectors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARBY M THOMASON whose telephone number is (703)756-5817. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 8am-5pm.
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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at (571) 272-2397. 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.
/DARBY M. THOMASON/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/UYEN CHAU N LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874