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 on 10/06/2025 and 09/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues: “The Richards and Sirmon references, even if combined, do not teach or suggest all of the elements of the claims, and namely claim 1. Specifically, the Richards reference does not teach or suggest: a quasi-three-dimensional imaging device with a varying depth effect; a housing containing a rear wall on which the quasi-three-dimensional imaging device is located; the housing expanding from the rear wall; or a quasi-three-dimensional imaging device mounted in such a way that on the side walls of the housing, a formation of unlit and illuminated areas with a border between them is ensured, and the Sirmon reference does not overcome that deficiency. Claim 1 recites a quasi-three-dimensional imaging device, i.e. a device that produces a quasi-three-dimensional image, while Richards is cited for a three-dimensional shape of a housing.”
Examiner notes that a housing is incapable of producing a 3D image without substantively more. Applicant’s intention to use the claimed housing in producing a 3D image does not limit the claimed housing to any particular structure that is not taught or suggested by the prior art. Considering that Richards and Sirmon teach variant embodiments of the claimed housing in substantively similar display devices to what is claimed is strong evidence of obviousness.
Examiner suggests claiming the exact mechanisms by which a quasi 3D display image is produced. What qualities make it a 3D image? How is the displayed image different from 3D surfaces of Richards or images that exploit persistence of human vision in Sirmon (which reads closely on the Specification)? What combination of components are required (at a minimum) to produce the intended 3D image to a viewer? Which claim features does Applicant regard to improve performance of the apparatus or perception of 3D by the user when compared with Sirmon?
Applicant argues: “In addition, neither reference teaches or suggests a quasi-three-dimensional imaging device together with a housing containing a rear wall on which the quasi-three-dimensional imaging device is located to provide a varying depth effect for the 3D image produced due to the POV effect. Applicant can find nothing in either reference where such a concept is even Contemplated.”
Examiner notes that “the POV effect” is not claimed or mentioned in the Specification. It is however described in Sirmon, as cited below. Clearly, it is the claims that are deficient with respect to this feature.
Applicant argues: “Claim 1 recites the housing being made expanding from the rear wall. Again, the Office Action merely recites abstract housing shapes.”
Examiner notes that Claim 1 is directed to a choice of an abstract shape for a housing. Prior art indicates that a variety of housing shapes can be chosen to contain substantively similar display structures as the claim, and that the choice of the housing shape does not affect the operation of the elements as they are claimed. This indicates obviousness.
If Applicant believes that the shape of the housing serves a specific function beyond housing the claimed components, then the additional function, material properties, and cooperating components should be claimed explicitly.
Applicant argues: “Claim 1 recites the quasi-three-dimensional imaging device is mounted so in such a way that on the side walls of the housing, a formation of unlit and illuminated areas with a border between them is ensured.”
Examiner notes that “in such a way” is not a specific structural limitation. As noted in the reasons for rejection below, there are many ways in which this intended result can be accomplished, not to mention that it is a natural result of directed lighting that portions of the housing facing the directed light will be lit and other portions will not be lit. This is a vague limitation, and it is not clear how this limitation leads to a display of a 3D image intended by the claim. Examiner suggests elaborating on the structures and collaborative operation of these claim features.
Applicant argues: “Applicant notes the limitations of per se rules of unpatentability.1 The facts of In re Dailey (disposable nursing container/bottle) are not sufficiently similar to the present application. Applicant respectfully submits that In re Dailey is limited, and not so broad to apply to a quasithree-dimensional imaging device with a varying depth effect located on a rear wall of a housing expanding from the rear wall, while the quasi-three-dimensional imaging device is mounted in such a way that on the side walls of the housing, a formation of unlit and illuminated areas with a border between them is ensured; and is thus inapplicable to the current claims.”
Examiner notes that this argument is not clear. In re Dailey is not cited as a basis for rejection. The rejection does not state that the claims are unpatentable per se.
The reasons for rejection indicate that the claim language is rendered obvious under section 103 in view of the references cited below.
Applicant argues: “Claim 6 further recites the housing on which images are placed. The Office Action appears to refer to the different display technology, mentioned in the cited references, while Claim 6 addresses the housing on which images are placed, e.g. an opaque housing.”
Examiner notes that Claim 6 is not directed to “an opaque housing.” Claim 6 also does not limit the mechanism by which the images are placed and prior art provides a large variety of embodiments that can be used in the claimed manner. See reasons for rejection below.
Applicant further argues: “Applicant notes that the support in the specification does not need to be verbatim, and that different language expressing the same meaning found in the original specification is sufficient. In addition, drawings alone can provide support for claims.”
Examiner notes that Applicant’s response does not cite support in the Specification at all, verbatim or otherwise.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 8-9 recite: “the motor and the beams mounted to the rear wall of the housing,” however Specification does not appear to support either the motor or the beams being mounted to the rear wall of the housing.
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).
“When a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 415, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11281164 to Richards (“Richards”) in view of US 20110164070 Sirmon (“Sirmon “) also cited in and IDS.
Regarding Claim 1: “A quasi-three-dimensional imaging device with a varying depth effect, including (A preamble is not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951). See rejections of the independent claim structures below and note that prior art provides functionality in the same context: The housing can contain a digital or a light display. See Richards, Column 2, lines 29-33. Another variant embodiment is to a housing that contains a display that uses persistence of human vision in Sirmon, Paragraph 1, which reads on the example in Specification, Page 4, last paragraph.)
-a housing containing a rear wall on which the quasi-three-dimensional imaging device is located, and side walls, (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, this function describes a housing in the form of a cone or a pyramid. See original Claims 2 and 3. Prior art teaches: “The shape of the housing may be, for example, a sphere, a cube, a pyramid, a cone, or any suitable three-dimensional shape.” See Richards, Column 30, lines 48-52. See similarly in Sirmon, Paragraph 28.)
the housing being made expanding from the rear wall, (“The shape of the housing may be, for example, a pyramid, a cone, or any suitable three-dimensional shape,” exemplifying shapes that expand See Richards, Column 30, lines 48-52. See similarly in Sirmon, Paragraphs 22, 28.)
while the quasi-three-dimensional imaging device is mounted so in such a way that on the side walls of the housing, a formation of unlit and illuminated areas with a border between them is ensured;” (See a border exemplified in a bezel between the display face (having lit elements) and the outer housing (unlit area) in Richards, Fig. 2 and Column 17, lines 13-15. See similarly in Sirmon, Paragraph 22.)
To the extent that the shapes or orientations of Richards may vary the housing shapes and display arrangements, note that the claimed variations would have been obvious. 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); also see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 415, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
It appears that a variety of shapes can be chosen for the housing without altering the functionality of the imaging device. See Specification, Page 2 and similarly in prior art Richards, Column 30, lines 48-52. This supports obviousness.
Cumulatively, Sirmon teaches the above housing shape variations in the context of displays, and particular to moving displays described in the Specification. See Sirmon, Paragraphs 22, 28.)
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 Richards to implement the claimed housing shape and display variations in the context of movable displays of Sirmon, in order to house the display circuitry in a desirable manner, and also “such that a plurality of housings may be placed with their peripheral edges in abutment.” See Sirmon, Paragraphs 22, 28.)
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 device according to claim 1, containing further comprising the housing in the form of a truncated cone.” (“The shape of the housing may be, for example, a pyramid, a cone, or any suitable three-dimensional shape.” See Richards, Column 30, lines 48-52. See similarly in Sirmon, Paragraphs 22, 28. See obviousness of shape substitution in Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 3. “The device according to claim 1, further comprising the housing in the form of a regular truncated pyramid.” (“The shape of the housing may be, for example, a pyramid, a cone, or any suitable three-dimensional shape.” See Richards, Column 30, lines 48-52. See similarly in Sirmon, Paragraphs 22, 28. See obviousness of shape substitution in Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 4. “The device according to claim 3, further comprising the housing in the form of a regular truncated pyramid, in which corners connecting the-faces are rounded.” (“The shape of the housing may be, for example, a pyramid, a cone, or any suitable three-dimensional shape,” See Richards, Column 30, lines 48-52. See similarly in Sirmon, Paragraphs 22, 28. Further, see Richards Fig. 2 having rounded surface that connects the faces of the housing. See obviousness of shape substitution in Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 5. “The device according to claim 1, further comprising the housing in the form of a regular truncated pyramid and additionally containing a front base, while the-comers connecting the side walls with additional front base are rounded.” (“The shape of the housing may be, for example, a pyramid, a cone, or any suitable three-dimensional shape,” See Richards, Column 30, lines 48-52. See similarly in Sirmon, Paragraphs 22, 28. Further, see Richards Fig. 2 having rounded surface that connects the faces of the housing. See obviousness of shape substitution in Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 6. “The device according to claim 1, further comprising the housing on which images are placed.” (“the housing … configured to display the passage of time.” Richards, Column 30, lines 48-55. “Any suitable display technology, such as liquid crystal display (LCD), organic light emitting diode (OLED), electrophoretic, and so on, may be utilized for the displays 1106 and 1212.” Richards, Column 29, lines 11-15.)
Regarding Claim 7. “The device according to claim 1, wherein the border of the transition from the unlit to the illuminated area is located in the central zone of the housing.” (This claim is unclear since the border is ordinarily defined as not being in the center. To the extent this is directed to the shapes of rotating display technology of the Specification (Fig. 1), such shapes are taught in Richards Figs. 2-5 and Sirmon Figs. 14-15. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 8: “A quasi-three-dimensional imaging device configured to provide a varying depth effect, the device comprising:
a motor; (“the drive system comprises a motor coupled to the at least one light source” Sirmon, Paragraph 33. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
beams rotatable by the motor and having light emitting diode (LED) strips; (“the drive system comprises a motor coupled to the at least one light source” Sirmon, Paragraph 33 and Fig. 19. “The light sources are typically light emitting diodes (LEDs),” Sirmon, Paragraphs 15, 117. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
the motor configured to rotate the beams with the LED strips (“a motor coupled to the at least one light source and the coupling system comprises a speed controller for controlling the speed of rotation of the at least one light source.” Sirmon, Paragraph 33 and Fig. 19.
to display a three-dimensional (3D) image; (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, the motor rotating the beams is insufficient to produce a 3D image, this is an intended result of the claim that does not further limit the claim to any particular structure. Specification indicates that the invention “allows further creation of effects that help the human eye to see the 3D image 106,” effectively by exploiting persistence of vision in the human eyes. See Specification, Page 4, last paragraph. This interpretation is also supported by Applicant’s arguments on 09/15/2025 on Page 4, second paragraph. Here, the prior art structure is also designed for this purpose: “to cause a desired image to be visible by virtue of persistence of vision.” Sirmon, Paragraph 1. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
a housing with a rear wall, a front outer edge, and side walls expanding from the rear wall to the front outer edge; (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, this function describes a housing in the form of a cone or a pyramid. See original Claims 2 and 3. Prior art teaches: “The shape of the housing may be, for example, a pyramid, a cone, or any suitable three-dimensional shape,” exemplifying shapes that expand See Richards, Column 30, lines 48-52. See similarly in Sirmon, Paragraphs 22, 28.)
the motor and the beams mounted to the rear wall of the housing; (See treatment of this element under section 112 above. Cumulatively note that prior art illustrates that a motor with the blades (i.e. beams of LEDs) is mounted to the rear wall of the housing in Sirmon, such that “the display device 100 has a shaft 101 which is driven by a motor (not shown) or other source of drive power.” See Sirmon, Fig. 14 and Paragraph 168.)
the beams being positioned in the housing between the rear wall and the front outer edge to form an illuminated area (See a border exemplified in a bezel between the display face (having lit elements) and the outer housing (unlit area) in Richards, Fig. 2 and Column 17, lines 13-15. See similarly in Sirmon, Fig. 14 and Paragraph 22: “The display module normally further comprises a housing in which the plurality of synchronising shafts are mounted, the housing comprising a front face and at least one peripheral face defining the perimeter of the housing. … The at least one light source is typically coupled to the plurality of synchronising shafts via a driven shaft which passes through an aperture in the front face,” thus placing the light source “beams” between the rear wall on which the assembly is mounted and the front face that forms an illuminated area. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
and an unlit area on the sidewalls with a border between the illuminated and unlit area; and (See a border exemplified in a bezel between the display face (having lit elements) and the outer housing (unlit area) in Richards, Fig. 2 and Column 17, lines 13-15. See similarly in Sirmon, Paragraphs 22, 178: “This ensures that the size and shape of the image generated by the display module overlays the front face of display module 1a exactly and the display module does not generate any portion of the desired image where the blade assembly 2a overlaps other adjacent display modules,” thus resulting in illuminated areas on the front face of the display and unlit areas on the sidewalls marking adjacent displays. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
the LED strips being configured to vary a position of the 3D image in proximity to the border on the side walls (“for LEDs in lines 3a and 4a falling outside the image boundary the intensity of the illumination [brightness] of the LEDs in line 3a and 4a is modified [varied] by multiplying the data values by zero such that no light is emitted by these LEDs. This occurs in step 204. This ensures that the size and shape of the image generated by the display module overlays the front face of display module 1a exactly [establishes exact image position] and the display module does not generate any portion of the desired image where the blade assembly 2a overlaps other adjacent display modules,” thus varying the LEDs to vary and establish a particular display position. Sirmon, Paragraph 178. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
and to vary a brightness of the 3D image to change a sharpness of the border on the side walls (“for LEDs in lines 3a and 4a falling outside the image boundary the intensity of the illumination [brightness] of the LEDs in line 3a and 4a is modified by multiplying the data values by zero such that no light is emitted by these LEDs. This occurs in step 204. This ensures that the size and shape of the image generated by the display module overlays the front face of display module la exactly and the display module does not generate any portion of the desired image where the blade assembly 2a overlaps other adjacent display modules.” This change of illumination of intensity on the image boundaries has the effect of changing sharpness of the image on the image boundaries and illumination of the side walls. Sirmon, Paragraph 178. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
in order to create an effect of casting a shadow by the 3D image.” (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, the adjustment of the LED strips in this element is insufficient to produce a 3D image, this is an intended result of the claim that does not further limit the claim to any particular structure. Specification indicates that the invention “allows further creation of effects that help the human eye to see the 3D image 106,” effectively by exploiting persistence of vision in the human eyes. See Specification, Page 4, last paragraph. Prior art structure is also designed for this purpose: “to cause a desired image to be visible by virtue of persistence of vision” Sirmon, Paragraph 1. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 9: “The device according to claim 8, wherein: the beams are positioned in the housing substantially in a middle between the rear wall and the front outer edge.” (See a border exemplified in a bezel between the display face (having lit elements) and the outer housing (unlit area) in Richards, Fig. 2 and Column 17, lines 13-15. See similarly in Sirmon, Fig. 14 and Paragraph 22: “The display module normally further comprises a housing in which the plurality of synchronising shafts are mounted, the housing comprising a front face and at least one peripheral face defining the perimeter of the housing. … The at least one light source is typically coupled to the plurality of synchronising shafts via a driven shaft which passes through an aperture in the front face,” thus placing the light source “beams” between the rear wall on which the assembly is mounted and the front face that forms an illuminated area. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
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