DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the separator wall (81) of the primary reference, Toda, does not extend above the polarizers (73A) of each of the first and second left sectors. Examiner respectfully disagrees and respectfully submits the separator wall (81) of Toda does not extend above the on chip color filter (76) but does extend above the polarizer (73-73A) as required by the amended claims.
PNG
media_image1.png
406
584
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Toda (US 2020/0013819 A1) FIG. 9
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-12 14-28, and 30-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson (US 2010/0231701 A1) in view of Toda (US 2020/0013819 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 17, Nelson discloses a method of manufacturing a stereoscopic display system having an array of multiple polarizing light emitting packages (MLEPs), providing within each of MLEPs, a first left sector [Nelson: FIG. 3A-3B: 53D first row Odd], a second left sector [Nelson: FIG. 3A: 53D second row Even], a first right sector [Nelson: FIG. 3B: 53E first row Odd], and a second right sector [Nelson: FIG. 3B: 53E second row Even]; providing within each sector of the MLEPs, at least a first light emitting element and a polarizer [Nelson: ¶ [0075]: an arrangement of filters for light polarization placed over a plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs) can result in a display suited for displaying 3D image content to viewers who are viewing through left and right lenses that are polarized in a complementary fashion]; and, positioning the MLEPs within the array such that when the array is viewed through glasses with corresponding polarizing lenses, a viewer perceives an image displayed by the array as a three-dimensional image [Nelson: ¶ [0075]].
Nelson may not explicitly disclose a separator wall disposed between first and second left sector, the separator wall having a height configured to extend above the polarizers of each of the first and second left sectors.
However, Toda discloses a separator wall disposed between first and second left sector, the separator wall having a height configured to extend above the polarizers of each of the first and second left sectors [Toda: FIG. 9; and ¶ [0087]: between a pixel 61 and another pixel 61 of the polarizer layer 73, the flattened film 72, and the OCCF layer 76, a light blocking wall 81 that does not transmit light therethrough is formed in order to suppress occurrence of color mixture].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the light blocking wall of Toda with the imager of Nelson in order to reduce color mixture.
Regarding Claims 2 and 18, Nelson in view of Toda discloses all the limitations of Claims 1 and 17, respectively, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Furthermore, Nelson in view of Toda discloses wherein the first light emitting element is configured to emit a first color [Nelson: ¶ [0070]: Various embodiments of the invention contemplate that any circled position (e.g. any of circles 309) may comprise a sub-array of LEDs, any of which are capable of producing a full range of colors].
Regarding Claims 3 and 19, Nelson in view of Toda discloses all the limitations of Claims 2 and 18, respectively, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Furthermore, Nelson in view of Toda discloses wherein the first light emitting element is configured to emit a second color, different from the first color [Nelson: ¶ [0070]].
Regarding Claims 4 and 20, Nelson in view of Toda discloses all the limitations of Claims 3 and 19, respectively, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Furthermore, Nelson in view of Toda discloses wherein the first light emitting element is configured to additionally emit a third color different from the first and second colors [Nelson: ¶ [0070]].
Regarding Claims 5 and 21, Nelson in view of Toda discloses all the limitations of Claims 2 and 19, respectively, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Furthermore, Nelson in view of Toda discloses wherein each sector of the MLEPs further comprise a second light emitting element configured to emit at least one of the first color and the second color [Nelson: ¶ [0070]].
Regarding Claims 6 and 22, Nelson in view of Toda discloses all the limitations of Claims 1 and 17, respectively, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Furthermore, Nelson in view of Toda discloses further comprising, in at least one of the MLEPs: separating the first left sector from the first right sector by a first distance; separating the second left sector from the second right sector by a second distance; and, separating the first left sector from the second right sector by a third distance [Nelson: FIG. 3A-3B: space between pixel elements].
Regarding Claims 7 and 23, Nelson in view of Toda discloses all the limitations of Claims 6 and 22, respectively, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Furthermore, Nelson in view of Toda discloses wherein the first distance is the same as the second distance [Nelson: FIG. 3A-3B].
Regarding Claims 8 and 24, Nelson in view of Toda discloses all the limitations of Claims 6 and 22, respectively, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Furthermore, Nelson in view of Toda discloses wherein the second distance is the same as the third distance [Nelson: FIG. 3A-3B].
Regarding Claims 9 and 25, Nelson in view of Toda discloses all the limitations of Claims 1 and 17, respectively, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Furthermore, Nelson in view of Toda discloses further comprising arranging at least 100 of the MLEPS across at least 10 rows [Nelson: ¶ [0071]: Modules such as are depicted in illuminated left channel front view 53D and/or as are depicted in illuminated right channel front view 53E may be comprised of columns and rows of LEDs of various sizes (for example, a size/area of two square feet). Alternatively, modules may be comprised of LEDs in an array substantially larger. Such a modular design facilitates the retrofitting of a range of LED display systems to comport with the principles of the 3D stereoscopic display system for large format LED displays disclosed herein].
Regarding Claims 10 and 26, Nelson in view of Toda discloses all the limitations of Claims 1 and 17, respectively, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Furthermore, Nelson in view of Toda discloses further comprising arranging at least 100 of the MLEPS across at least 10 diagonals [Nelson: ¶ [0071]].
Regarding Claims 11 and 27, Nelson in view of Toda discloses all the limitations of Claims 1 and 17, respectively, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Furthermore, Nelson in view of Toda discloses wherein at least one of the MLEPs has a visually distinguishable feature selected from the group consisting of a key mark, a slot, and a cut- out [Nelson: ¶ [0102]: a pair of LEDs is keyed using a slot or indentation for indicating readiness for fitting to either a left eye polarizer or to a right eye polarizer].
Regarding Claims 12 and 28, Nelson in view of Toda discloses all the limitations of Claims 1 and 17, respectively, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Furthermore, Nelson in view of Toda discloses further comprising disposing a diffuser between the first light emitting element and the polarizer of at least one of the MLEPs [Nelson: FIG. 8: 804].
Regarding Claims 14 and 30, Nelson in view of Toda disclose(s) all the limitations of Claims 1 and 17, respectively, and is/are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Furthermore, Nelson in view of Toda discloses wherein the first separator wall is opaque to visible light [Toda: ¶ [0087]].
Regarding Claims 15 and 31, Nelson in view of Toda disclose(s) all the limitations of Claims 1 and 17, respectively, and is/are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Furthermore, Nelson in view of Toda discloses wherein the first separator wall is disposed between the polarizer of the first left sector and the polarizer of the second left sector [Toda: FIG. 9].
Regarding Claims 16 and 32, Nelson in view of Toda disclose(s) all the limitations of Claims 1 and 17, respectively, and is/are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Furthermore, Nelson in view of Toda discloses further comprising positioning a second separator wall between the first left sector and the first right sector [Toda: FIG. 10B].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN R MESSMORE whose telephone number is (571)272-2773. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 EST/EDT.
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, Chris Kelley can be reached at 571-272-7331. 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.
/JONATHAN R MESSMORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482