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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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) 1-4, 19, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Visser (20180348548).
PNG
media_image1.png
377
473
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Visser teaches an display panel, comprising:
a central display region (fig. 4B: 406) and an angle-customized display region (fig. 4B: 402,404, 406) surrounding the central display region,
wherein the central display region and the angle-customized display region each includes a plurality of sub-pixels (par. 21 and fig. 2 & 3 teach first, second and third sub pixel 106/108/110 being in each pixel 104 and each pixel being in each light emitting structure 122/124/126), a sub-pixel includes a light emitting device (par. 21 and fig. 2 & 3 teach first, second and third sub pixel 106/108/110 being in each pixel 104 and each pixel being in each light emitting structure 122/124/126, the light emitting structure being, for example, an OLED) and a metasurface device (fig. 3: 316/318/320 + 314; please not that ultra-thin, artificially engineered materials with nanoscale structures that manipulate light and other electromagnetic waves) corresponding to the light emitting device, a metasurface device in the angle-customized display region is configured such that light emitted by a corresponding light emitting device is deflected at a customized angle corresponding to the angle-customized display region (par. 27, 29 teaches that 130 being configured to perform this action to EM waves).
Please note that multiple embodiments of prior art are used above. The embodiment seen in fig. 2 and 3 show a pixel with multiple sub pixels, while the embodiment seen in fig. 4B teaches said pixels in various arrangements. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of filing to arrange the pixel, seen in fig. 2 and 3, in a manner seen in fig. 4B since Visser teaches that such arrangement afford varying benefits e.g. plurality of nanostructures 412 disposed on the first nanolens 410 are adapted to reduce or eliminate chromatic aberrations and to compensate for an optical path length of red light at an image plane. The second plurality of nanostructures 416 disposed on the second nanolens 414 are adapted to reduce or eliminate chromatic aberrations and to compensate for an optical path length of blue light at the image plane. The third plurality of nanostructures 420 disposed on the third nanolens 418 are adapted to reduce or eliminate chromatic aberrations and compensate for an optical path length of green light at the image plane. Thus, it is possible to form a focused image at the image plane with light of varying wavelengths.
Regarding claim 2, Visser teaches an display panel according to claim 1, wherein, the metasurface device includes a plurality of metasurface units arranged regularly, at least one of the plurality of metasurface units includes a base substrate and a post body disposed on the base substrate, and a refractive index of the base substrate is different from a refractive index of the post body (see fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Visser teaches an display panel according to claim 2, wherein in the central display region, a pixel opening region of the sub-pixel has a first centerline extending along a first direction or a second centerline extending along a second direction, a plurality of metasurface units of the metasurface device are symmetrically disposed with respect to at least one of a geometric center of the sub-pixel, the first centerline, and the second centerline, the second direction intersects with the first direction, and an intersection point of the first centerline and the second centerline is the geometric center of the sub-pixel (please see fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, Visser teaches an display panel according to claim 2, wherein pixel opening regions of the sub-pixels in the central display region and the angle-customized display region each include a first region, the first region includes a plurality of sub-regions, a diameter of a metasurface unit in a sub-region farther from a geometric center of the sub-pixel in the plurality of sub-regions is smaller, or a diameter of a metasurface unit in a sub-region farther from a geometric center of the first region in the plurality of sub-regions is smaller (please see figure 3 which shows varying sixed of the nano structures).
Regarding claim 19, Visser teaches an display panel according to claim 1, wherein in a direction perpendicular to a plane of the display panel, the display panel includes a base substrate, a light emitting structure layer located on a side of the base substrate, and a metasurface structure layer disposed on a side of the light emitting structure layer away from the base substrate, the light emitting structure layer includes a plurality of light emitting devices, and the metasurface structure layer includes a plurality of metasurface devices (please see fig. 3 which shows this structure).
Regarding claim 21, Visser teaches an near-eye display apparatus, comprising: a display panel according claim 1 and a light modulation device located on a light exit side of the display panel, wherein a metasurface device in an angle-customized display region of the display panel is configured such that light emitted by a corresponding light emitting device is deflected at a customized angle corresponding to the angle-customized display region and incident to the light modulation device (please see rejection for claim 1 above, as well as par. 4 and 5).
Regarding claim 22, Visser teaches an near-eye display apparatus according to claim 21, wherein the light modulation device comprises a lens (par. 42 and 43).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 (please note this claims dependencies) objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 7 (please note this claims dependencies) objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 8 (please note this claims dependencies) objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 10 (please note this claims dependencies) objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 11 (please note this claims dependencies) objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 12 (please note this claims dependencies) objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 13 (please note this claims dependencies) objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 14 (please note this claims dependencies) objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 15 (please note this claims dependencies) objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 16 (please note this claims dependencies) objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 17 (please note this claims dependencies) objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 18 (please note this claims dependencies) objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 20 (please note this claims dependencies) objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CALEB E HENRY whose telephone number is (571)270-5370. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri.
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, Eva Montalvo can be reached at (571) 270-3829. 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.
/CALEB E HENRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818