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 .
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 5, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant’s amendment filed December 5, 2025. Claims 4 and 12 have been cancelled without prejudice. Claims 1-3, 5-11, and 12-20 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows. Claims 5, 10, and 16-19 were previously withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 5, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regard to independent claim 1, applicant’s arguments, on pages 13-20, that the previously applied prior art fails to disclose all of the limitations of claim 1, as newly amended, have been fully considered and are appreciated. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, applicant argues that Zhang et al fails to disclose “a plurality of grating groups, each of the plurality of grating groups comprises a plurality of drive electrodes, and in response to the plurality of drive electrodes in a same grating group of the plurality of grating groups loading a gradient voltage, the liquid crystal grating modulates the incident light”. Applicant further argues that the Zhang et al. reference controls voltages to regulate misaligned movement of light shielding and light transmitting areas. Applicant further argues that electrodes of Zhang et al. fall in different layers. It is noted that the claim language requires grating groups of drive electrodes having the ability to have a same voltage applied. It is noted that there is no spatial relationship of the electrodes in the claim language. Further, application of voltage to the electrodes appears to be a functional limitation without structure such as a controller, power supply, driver, etc., configured to apply voltages in a specific way. Therefore, Zhang et al. satisfies the limitation, as set forth below.
Second, applicant argues that Zhang et al. fails to disclose “wherein the first incident light and the second incident light satisfy: λ1 > λ2, wherein λ1 denotes a center wavelength of the first incident light, λ2 denotes a center wavelength of the second incident light”. However, it is noted that the claim is drawn to a liquid crystal grating that does not appear to include a light source configured to emit light of specific wavelengths, λ1, λ2. Thus, the limitation appears to be intended use. It is noted that the recitation of an intended use limitation must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. In this case, the device of Zhang et al. is cable of performing this limitation and thus meets the limitations of the claim.
Third, applicant argues that Zhang et al. fails to disclose “each of the modulating of the first incident light and the modulating of the second incident light comprises a first stage and a second stage, in the first stage, a drive electrode of the plurality of drive electrodes writes a corresponding modulation voltage, and the first stage and the second stage satisfy: t1a/t1b < t2a/t2b, wherein t1 denotes modulation duration for modulating the first incident light, and t2 denotes modulation duration for modulating the second incident light, t1a denotes duration of the first stage when the first incident light is modulated, t1b denotes duration of the second stage when the first incident light is modulated, t1b = t1 – t1a, t2a denotes duration of the first stage when the second incident light is modulated, t2b denotes duration of the second stage when the second incident light is modulated, and t2b = t2 - t2a2”. However, said limitation appears to be a functional limitation, since no related structure for controlling the voltage/timing is claimed. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, the electrodes of Zhang et al. maybe operated to meet the limitation.
Fourth, applicant argues that Zhang et al. fails to disclose “wherein a voltage loaded by the plurality of drive electrodes satisfies: V2max- V2min < V1max- V1min, and V1min < V2min, wherein V1min denotes a minimum voltage loaded by the plurality of drive electrodes for modulating the first incident light, and V1max denotes a maximum voltage loaded by the plurality of drive electrodes for modulating the first incident light; V2min denotes a minimum voltage loaded by the plurality of drive electrodes for modulating the second incident light, V2max denotes a maximum voltage loaded by the plurality of drive electrodes for modulating the second incident light”. However, said limitation appears to be a functional limitation, since no related structure for controlling the voltage/timing is claimed. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, the electrodes of Zhang et al. maybe operated to meet the limitation.
Similar arguments apply to independent claim 20.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-9, 11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. CN 103278973).
In regard to claim 1, Zhang et al. discloses a liquid crystal grating (see e.g. paragraphs [0005]-[0006] for grating), configured to modulate incident light and output deflected emitted light (see e.g. paragraphs [0005]-[0006] for deflection), comprising:
a plurality of grating groups (see e.g. Figures 1-3 and note that the grating may be divided into groups), each of the plurality of grating groups comprises a plurality of drive electrodes (102, 104 in Figure 1, 202, 203, 207 in Figure 2), and
in response to the plurality of drive electrodes (102, 104 in Figure 1, 202, 203, 207 in Figure 2) in a same grating group of the plurality of grating groups loading a gradient voltage (see e.g. paragraph [0006]), the liquid crystal grating modulates the incident light (see e.g. paragraph [0006] and note that the limitation, “in response to the plurality of drive electrodes in a same grating group of the plurality of grating groups loading a gradient voltage, the liquid crystal grating modulates the incident light” is a functional limitation. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, the electrodes of Zhang et al. maybe operated to meet the limitation.),
wherein
the incident light comprises at least first incident light and second incident light, first emitted light is output after the first incident light is modulated by the liquid crystal grating, second emitted light is output after the second incident light is modulated by the liquid crystal grating (see e.g. Figures 1-3 and note that the grating is dynamic and may have a different voltage applied at different times and could be controlled such that the incident light satisfies the functional claim language. Further, this limitation appears to be intended use. It is noted that the recitation of an intended use limitation must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. In this case, the device of Zhang et al. is cable of performing this limitation and thus meets the limitations of the claim.);
wherein the first incident light and the second incident light satisfy:
λ1 > λ 2, wherein λ 1 denotes a center wavelength of the first incident light, λ 2 denotes a center wavelength of the second incident light (This limitation appears to be intended use. It is noted that the recitation of an intended use limitation must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. In this case, the device of Zhang et al. is cable of performing this limitation and thus meets the limitations of the claim.); and
wherein the first incident light and the second incident light satisfy at least one of the following (This limitation appears to be intended use. It is noted that the recitation of an intended use limitation must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. In this case, the device of Zhang et al. is cable of performing this limitation and thus meets the limitations of the claim.):
each of the modulating of the first incident light and the modulating of the second incident light comprises a first stage and a second stage, in the first stage, a drive electrode of the plurality of drive electrodes writes a corresponding modulation voltage (see e.g. paragraph [0006] and note that the limitation, “each of the modulating of the first incident light and the modulating of the second incident light comprises a first stage and a second stage, in the first stage, a drive electrode of the plurality of drive electrodes writes a corresponding modulation voltage” appears to be functional. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, the electrodes of Zhang et al. maybe operated to meet the limitation.), and
the first stage and the second stage satisfy: t1a/t1b < t2a/t2b, wherein t1 denotes modulation duration for modulating the first incident light, and t2 denotes modulation duration for modulating the second incident light, t1a denotes duration of the first stage when the first incident light is modulated, t1b denotes duration of the second stage when the first incident light is modulated, t1b = t1 – t1a, t2a denotes duration of the first stage when the second incident light is modulated, t2b denotes duration of the second stage when the second incident light is modulated, and t2b = t2 - t2a2 (see e.g. paragraph [0006] and note that the limitation, “the first stage and the second stage satisfy: t1a/t1b < t2a/t2b, wherein t1 denotes modulation duration for modulating the first incident light, and t2 denotes modulation duration for modulating the second incident light, t1a denotes duration of the first stage when the first incident light is modulated, t1b denotes duration of the second stage when the first incident light is modulated, t1b = t1 – t1a, t2a denotes duration of the first stage when the second incident light is modulated, t2b denotes duration of the second stage when the second incident light is modulated” appears to be functional. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, the electrodes of Zhang et al. maybe operated to meet the limitation.)
or
wherein a voltage loaded by the plurality of drive electrodes satisfies: V2max- V2min < V1max- V1min, and V1min < V2min, wherein V1min denotes a minimum voltage loaded by the plurality of drive electrodes for modulating the first incident light, and V1max denotes a maximum voltage loaded by the plurality of drive electrodes for modulating the first incident light; V2min denotes a minimum voltage loaded by the plurality of drive electrodes for modulating the second incident light, V2max denotes a maximum voltage loaded by the plurality of drive electrodes for modulating the second incident light (see e.g. paragraph [0006] and note that the limitation, “wherein a voltage loaded by the plurality of drive electrodes satisfies: V2max- V2min < V1max- V1min, and V1min < V2min, wherein V1min denotes a minimum voltage loaded by the plurality of drive electrodes for modulating the first incident light, and V1max denotes a maximum voltage loaded by the plurality of drive electrodes for modulating the first incident light; V2min denotes a minimum voltage loaded by the plurality of drive electrodes for modulating the second incident light, V2max denotes a maximum voltage loaded by the plurality of drive electrodes for modulating the second incident light” appears to be functional. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, the electrodes of Zhang et al. maybe operated to meet the limitation.).
In regard to claim 2, Zhang et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein a modulation period of the liquid crystal grating comprises a plurality of subframes, and modulation duration of the incident light corresponds to duration of one of the plurality of subframes, wherein an end moment of an Nth subframe of the plurality of subframes is the same as a start moment of an (N + 1)th subframe of the plurality of subframes, and N is an integer >2 (note that the limitation, “wherein a modulation period of the liquid crystal grating comprises a plurality of subframes, and modulation duration of the incident light corresponds to duration of one of the plurality of subframes, wherein an end moment of an Nth subframe of the plurality of subframes is the same as a start moment of an (N + 1)th subframe of the plurality of subframes, and N is an integer >2” appears to be functional. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, the electrodes of Zhang et al. maybe operated to meet the limitation.).
In regard to claim 3, Zhang et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
the modulation duration satisfies: t1 > t2 (note that the limitation, “the modulation duration satisfies: t1 > t2” appears to be functional. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, the electrodes of Zhang et al. maybe operated to meet the limitation.).
In regard to claim 6, Zhang et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 3 above, and
the first stage satisfies: t1a > t2a; and the second stage satisfies: t1b> t2b (note that the limitation, “the first stage satisfies: t1a > t2a; and the second stage satisfies: t1b> t2b” appears to be functional. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, the electrodes of Zhang et al. maybe operated to meet the limitation.).
In regard to claim 7, Zhang et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 3 above, and
wherein the incident light further comprises third incident light, and the first incident light, the second incident light, and the third incident light satisfy: λ1> λ2> λ3 (This limitation appears to be intended use. It is noted that the recitation of an intended use limitation must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. In this case, the device of Zhang et al. is cable of performing this limitation and thus meets the limitations of the claim.); and the modulation duration satisfies: t1> t2, and t1 >t3, wherein λ3 denotes a center wavelength of the third incident light and t3 denotes modulation duration for modulating the third incident light (note that the limitation, “the modulation duration satisfies: t1> t2, and t1 >t3, wherein λ3 denotes a center wavelength of the third incident light and t3 denotes modulation duration for modulating the third incident light” appears to be functional. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, the electrodes of Zhang et al. maybe operated to meet the limitation.).
In regard to claim 8, Zhang et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 7 above, and
t1 > t2 > t3 (note that the limitation, “t1 > t2 > t3” appears to be functional. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, the electrodes of Zhang et al. maybe operated to meet the limitation.).
. In regard to claim 9, Zhang et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 8 above, and
the first stage and the second stage satisfy: t1a/t1b < t2a/t2b < t3a/t3b, t3a denotes duration of the first stage when the third incident light is modulated, t3b denotes duration of the second stage when the third incident light is modulated, and t3b = t3 - t3a (note that the limitation, “the first stage and the second stage satisfy: t1a/t1b < t2a/t2b < t3a/t3b, t3a denotes duration of the first stage when the third incident light is modulated, t3b denotes duration of the second stage when the third incident light is modulated, and t3b = t3 - t3a” appears to be functional. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, the electrodes of Zhang et al. maybe operated to meet the limitation.).
In regard to claim 11, Zhang et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 8 above, and the first stage satisfies: t1a > t2a ≥ t3a; and the second stage satisfies: t1b > t2b ≥ t3b (note that the limitation, “the first stage satisfies: t1a > t2a ≥ t3a; and the second stage satisfies: t1b > t2b ≥ t3b” appears to be functional. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, the electrodes of Zhang et al. maybe operated to meet the limitation.)
In regard to claim 13, Zhang et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein a maximum voltage V1max loaded by the plurality of drive electrodes when the first incident light is modulated is the same as or different from a maximum voltage V2max loaded by the plurality of drive electrodes when the second incident light is modulated (see e.g. Figure 3 for voltage application versus time and note that for a given time period, the voltage applied are different and satisfy the claim language).
In regard to claim 14, Zhang et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 7 above, and the voltage loaded by the plurality of drive electrodes satisfies: V1min< V2min< V3min, wherein V3min, denotes a minimum voltage loaded by the plurality of drive electrodes when the third incident light is modulated (note that the limitation, “the voltage loaded by the plurality of drive electrodes satisfies: V1min< V2min< V3min, wherein V3min, denotes a minimum voltage loaded by the plurality of drive electrodes when the third incident light is modulated” appears to be functional. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, the electrodes of Zhang et al. maybe operated to meet the limitation.).
In regard to claim 15, Zhang et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and the voltage loaded by the plurality of drive electrodes satisfies: V1min< V2min, wherein the modulation duration satisfies: t1 = t1 (note that the limitation, “the voltage loaded by the plurality of drive electrodes satisfies: V1min< V2min, wherein the modulation duration satisfies” appears to be functional. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, the electrodes of Zhang et al. maybe operated to meet the limitation.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Futterer et al. (US 2014/0300709 A1) in view of Popovich et al. (US 2013/0077154 A1).
In regard to claim 20, Futterer et al. discloses a three-dimensional display device, comprising
a backlight module BL, a spatial light modulator S, and a liquid crystal grating D that are sequentially stacked (see e.g. paragraph [0066]),
when the liquid crystal grating D modulates the first incident light and the second incident light (note that the limitation, “when the liquid crystal grating modulates the first incident light and the second incident light” appears to be functional. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, the electrodes of Futterer et al. maybe operated to meet the limitation.),
first emitted light is output after the first incident light is modulated by the liquid crystal grating D (see e.g. paragraph [0066] and Figures 1-7 for path of light through grating),
second emitted light is output after the second incident light is modulated by the liquid crystal grating (see e.g. paragraph [0066] and Figures 1-7 for path of light through grating), and
wherein the first incident light and the second incident light satisfy:
λ1 > λ 2, wherein λ 1 denotes a center wavelength of the first incident light, λ 2 denotes a center wavelength of the second incident light (This limitation appears to be intended use. It is noted that the recitation of an intended use limitation must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. In this case, the device of Futterer et al. is cable of performing this limitation and thus meets the limitations of the claim.),
each of the modulating of the first incident light and the modulating of the second incident light comprises a first stage and a second stage, in the first stage, a drive electrode of the plurality of drive electrodes writes a corresponding modulation voltage (see e.g. paragraph [0006] and note that the limitation, “each of the modulating of the first incident light and the modulating of the second incident light comprises a first stage and a second stage, in the first stage, a drive electrode of the plurality of drive electrodes writes a corresponding modulation voltage” appears to be functional. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, the electrodes of Futterer et al. maybe operated to meet the limitation.), and
the first stage and the second stage satisfy: t1a/t1b < t2a/t2b, wherein t1 denotes modulation duration for modulating the first incident light, and t2 denotes modulation duration for modulating the second incident light, t1a denotes duration of the first stage when the first incident light is modulated, t1b denotes duration of the second stage when the first incident light is modulated, t1b = t1 – t1a, t2a denotes duration of the first stage when the second incident light is modulated, t2b denotes duration of the second stage when the second incident light is modulated, and t2b = t2 - t2a2 (see e.g. paragraph [0006] and note that the limitation, “the first stage and the second stage satisfy: t1a/t1b < t2a/t2b, wherein t1 denotes modulation duration for modulating the first incident light, and t2 denotes modulation duration for modulating the second incident light, t1a denotes duration of the first stage when the first incident light is modulated, t1b denotes duration of the second stage when the first incident light is modulated, t1b = t1 – t1a, t2a denotes duration of the first stage when the second incident light is modulated, t2b denotes duration of the second stage when the second incident light is modulated” appears to be functional. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, the electrodes of Futterer et al. may be operated to meet the limitation.)
or
wherein a voltage loaded by the plurality of drive electrodes satisfies: V2max- V2min < V1max- V1min, and V1min < V2min, wherein V1min denotes a minimum voltage loaded by the plurality of drive electrodes for modulating the first incident light, and V1max denotes a maximum voltage loaded by the plurality of drive electrodes for modulating the first incident light; V2min denotes a minimum voltage loaded by the plurality of drive electrodes for modulating the second incident light, V2max denotes a maximum voltage loaded by the plurality of drive electrodes for modulating the second incident light (see e.g. paragraph [0006] and note that the limitation, “wherein a voltage loaded by the plurality of drive electrodes satisfies: V2max- V2min < V1max- V1min, and V1min < V2min, wherein V1min denotes a minimum voltage loaded by the plurality of drive electrodes for modulating the first incident light, and V1max denotes a maximum voltage loaded by the plurality of drive electrodes for modulating the first incident light; V2min denotes a minimum voltage loaded by the plurality of drive electrodes for modulating the second incident light, V2max denotes a maximum voltage loaded by the plurality of drive electrodes for modulating the second incident light” appears to be functional. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, the electrodes of Futterer et al. maybe operated to meet the limitation.),
the spatial light modulator S is configured to modulate a phase and an amplitude of the backlight BL (see e.g. paragraph [0066]); and
wherein the liquid crystal grating D is configured to modulate incident light and the incident light comprises at least first incident light and second incident light (see e.g. paragraph [0066]).
Futterer et al. fails to disclose
wherein the backlight module is configured to provide field-sequential collimation coherent backlight required for three-dimensional display.
However, Popovich et al. discloses
wherein the backlight module is configured to provide field-sequential collimation coherent backlight required for three-dimensional display (see e.g. paragraph [0041] which notes the backlight may use lasers which produce collimated and coherent light and paragraph [0051] where sequential operation of the backlight module is noted).
Given the teachings of Popovich et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Futterer et al. with wherein the backlight module is configured to provide field-sequential collimation coherent backlight required for three-dimensional display.
Doing so would allow the backlight to alternately apply different color light, which allows the display to operate in a three dimensional mode or provide different views to different viewers.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA M MERLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3207. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571) 272-9791. 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.
/JESSICA M MERLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871