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 .
Remark
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed on September 23, 2025, which has been entered into the file.
By this amendment, the applicant has amended claim 11.
Claims 1-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on October 8, 2024. It is noted claim 1 recites “the grating layer transmits a portion of the 1st order diffracted light beam that us reflected by lower surface of the light guide” that does not read on the elected species B (Figure 5).
Claims 11-12 and 14-20 remain pending in this application.
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 11-12, and 14-20 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. Claim 11 has been amended to include the phrase “intensity distribution of the enlarged light beam continuously decreases from a center of the enlarged light beam to a periphery of the enlarged light beam”, that is not explicitly supported by the specification of originally filed.
Claims 12 and 14-20 inherit the rejection from their based claim.
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) 11 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the patent issued to Yokoyama (PN. 10,133,077) in view of US patent application publication by Eib et al (US 2005/0151949 A1) and the US patent issued to Lam et al (PN. 10,578,876).
Claim 11 has been amended to necessitate the new grounds of rejection.
Yokoyama teaches, with regard to claim 11, a luminous flux diameter enlarging element (10, Figure 1) that serves as the aperture enlargement film that is comprised of a light guide body (1) serve as the light guide layer and a first grating layer (12) disposed on an upper surface of the light guide layer and a second grating layer (11) disposed on a lower surface of the light guide layer wherein the second grating layer (11) is configured to transmit a light beam incident on a lower surface of the second grating layer, (please see Figure 1). Yokoyama teaches that the first grating layer (12) is configured to transmit a 0th order diffracted light beam (L10) from the second grating layer in a direction perpendicular to an upper surface of the first grating layer and obliquely reflect a portion of a 1st order diffracted light beam (L-1) from the second grating layer toward the light guide layer. Yokoyama teaches that the 0th order diffracted light may be transmitted at an angle of qmax, and the incident angle may be between positive qmax to negative qmax and qmax may be 7 degrees, (please see columns 5 and 8). This means the incident angle may include zero degree which means the 0th order diffracted light beam is being transmitted in a direction perpendicular to the upper surface of the light grating layer.
Yokoyama further teaches that the first grating layer (12) is configured to diffract and transmit the portion of the 1st order diffracted light beam from the second grating layer, (please see Figure 1), in a direction perpendicular to the upper surface of the first grating layer, (with regard to claim 11).
As shown in Figure 1 of Yokoyama, the boundary of transmitted 1st order diffracted light beam and the boundary of the transmitted 0th order diffracted light beam should be at least overlapped to each other to provide the resultant illuminance flux with an enlarged diameter. The degrees of overlapping may be affected by the thickness of the light guide body, (1, Figure 1).
This reference however does not teach explicitly that the intensity of the transmitted 0th order diffracted light is greater than the intensity of transmitted 1st order diffracted light beam. Claim 11 also has been amended to include the phrase “the intensity distribution of the enlarged light beam decreases continuously from a center of the enlarged light beam to a periphery of the enlarged light beam”.
However this feature may be implicitly met since for a typical grating layer, the 0th order light in general has a greater intensity than higher orders diffracted light. Eib et al in the same field of endeavor teaches an optical mask functions as diffractive grating, (please see paragraph [0031]) that has an intensity distribution that the intensity of the 0th order is greater than the intensity of the 1th diffraction order. It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Eib et al to modify the diffraction grating to have the specific diffraction intensity profile for the benefit of allowing the enlarged beam to have the desired intensity distribution. Furthermore, in light of Eib et al the intensity distribution of the enlarged light beam disclosed by Yokoyama in Figure 1, has to decrease from a center of the enlarged light beam to a periphery of the enlarged light beam, specifically since the center of the enlarged beam is contributed from 0th order light and the periphery region of the enlarged beam is contributed from 1st order of light. In light of Figure 2A of Eib et al, the superimposition of the intensity distributions of the different diffraction orders may provide an intensity distribution of the enlarged light beam, including zero order, first orders and second orders diffracted light, may decrease continuously from the center to the periphery of the light beam.
Claim 11 also includes the phrase “the second grating layer is further configured to reflect the portion of the 1st order diffracted light beam reflected by the first grating layer and incident on the upper surface of the second grating layer in a direction at an angle at an upper surface of the second grating layer”. Claim 11 further includes the phrase “wherein a width of the first grating layer is equal to a width of the second grating layer”.
Yokoyama teaches that the portion of the 1st order diffracted light beam (L+1, and/or L-1) reflected by the first grating layer (12) is incident on a lower surface of the light guide layer and is reflected at an angle to the upper surface of the second grating layer (i.e. related to the upper surface of the second grating layer 11).
This reference does not teach explicitly that the 1st order diffracted light beam reflected by the first grating layer is incident on an upper surface of the second grating layer and to be reflected at an angle to the upper surface of the second grating layer and this reference does not teach explicitly that the width of the first and second grating layers are equal to each other.
Lam et al in the same field of endeavor teaches that it is known in the art to use a second diffraction grating (182, Figure 1) that allows the light reflected from the first diffraction grating (183) and incident on the upper surface of the second diffraction grating (182) to be reflected in a direction at an angle to the upper surface of the second diffraction grating. Furthermore, the diffraction gratings (182 and 183) have equal width. It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Lam et al to make the second grating layer to have the same width of the first grating layer with the second grating layer also to achieve the same function of reflecting the first order diffracted light beam reflected from the first diffraction layer to be reflected in an angle with respect to the upper surface of the second grating layer so that the portion of the first order diffracted light beam propagates within the light guide layer.
With regard to claim 14, Yokoyama teaches that the beam diameter of the enlarged light beam is greater than a beam diameter of each of the incident light beam, (please see Figure 1).
With regard to claim 15, Yokoyama does not teach explicitly that the thickness of the light guide body ranges from 1 mm to 5 mm, however such feature may be either implicitly met or obvious modified by one skilled in the art since it only involves design choice for one skilled in the art.
With regard to claim 16, Yokoyama teaches that the light guide body (1) is configured to obliquely propagate the 1st order diffracted light beam from the first grating layer along an inside of the light guide layer based on total internal reflection, (please see Figure 1).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoyama and Eib et al and Lam et al as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of the US patent application publication by Nakanishi et al (US 2004/0233534 A1).
The luminous flux diameter enlarging element taught by Yokoyama in combination with the teachings of Eib et al and Lam et al as described in claim 11 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claim 12, this reference does not teach explicitly that the second grating layer is further configured to diffract the light beam incident on the lower surface of the second grating layer. However this phrase is rejected under 35 USC 112, first paragraph, for the reasons set forth above.
Nakanishi et al in the same field of endeavor teaches that the diffracted light from the first grating layer (4, Figure 7B) may incident on the second grating layer (5), at upper surface of the second grating layer, and the second grating layer may diffract the light and the light is obliquely traveled with respect to the upper surface of the second grating layer, (please see Figure 7B). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Nakanishi et al to alternatively make the second grating layer also to diffract the light to obliquely travel within the light guide body.
Claims 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoyama, Eib et al and Lam et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US patent application publication by Futterer (US 2016/0327906 A1).
The luminous flux diameter enlarging element taught by Yokoyama in combination with the teachings of Eib et al and Lam et al as described in claim 11 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claims 17-18, Yokoyama does not teach to further comprises a Gaussian anodization filter array disposed to face the lower surface of the light guide layer.
Futterer in the same field of endeavor teaches a display device for holographic reconstruction wherein a backlight unit (BLU, Figure 8) is used to provide coherent collimated illumination light to the spatial light modulator (please see paragraph [0176]). Futterer further teaches to include an apodization filter array (APO) disposed to face the light entering surface of the spatial light modulator (Figure 8). The apodization filter array comprises a plurality of apodization filters that is configured to convert an intensity distribution of the light beam.
It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Futterer to include an apodization filter array for the benefit of allowing the format of intensity distribution of the light be designed as desired. Although this reference does not teach explicitly that the apodization filter array is a Gaussian apodization filter array, such modification is considered to be obvious matters of design choice to one skilled in the art to make the apodization filter with specific Gaussian profile.
Claims 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoyama, Eib et al and Lam et al as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of the US patent application publication by Verschuren (US 2012/0099194 A1).
The luminous flux diameter enlarging element taught by Yokoyama in combination with the teachings of Eib et al and Lam et al as described in claim 11 above has met all the limitations of the claim.
With regard to claims 19-20, these references do not teach explicitly to include a prism array. Verschuren in the same field of the endeavor teaches to utilize a prism array (301, Figure 3) that is disposed in front of the pixels (210/220) of a display (303) wherein the prism array is divided into a plurality of unit regions that are two-dimensionally dispose and wherein each of the plurality of unit regions comprises a plurality of prisms configured to propagate an incident light in different directions (212, 222).
It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Verschuren to modify the display device of Yokoyama, (please see Figure 10) to further include a prism array for the benefit of allowing image for different viewpoint can be directed to the different viewpoint to enhance the depth viewing or providing multi-view display device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on September 23, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The newly amended claim has been fully considered and they are rejected for the reasons set forth above.
Applicant’s arguments are mainly drawn to the newly amended claim that have been fully addressed in the reasons set forth above. In response to applicant’s arguments, the diffraction/transmissive/reflection of the diffractive elements taught by the cited Yokoyama reference as shown in Figure 1 has the same behavior as the instant application which means the resultant enlarged light beam has the same properties as the instant claims of the application.
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 AUDREY Y CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2309. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 9:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Stephone B Allen can be reached on 571-272-2434. 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.
AUDREY Y. CHANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/AUDREY Y CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872