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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 03/18/2026 are acknowledged and accepted. Claims 1 and 3 are amended, no Claims are canceled/withdrawn, no Claims have been added, and Claims 1-4 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Newly cited reference Nakahara (US 20130057954 A1) has been introduced to treat the amended limitations of claims 1 and 3. See the detailed rejection below.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on KR10-2019-0022578 dated 02/26/2019.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20170185037 A1), previously cited, and further in view of Nakahara (US 20130057954 A1), newly cited.
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches, in Fig. 3 and 6: a flat panel display comprising:
a light source (“source 305”; [0040], “beam conditioner 310”; [0041]) configured to emit parallel light (see parallel light output from 310);
a flat panel (“SLMs 320”; [0041]) on which the parallel light is incident (see Fig. 3), the flat panel (320) being configured to provide a three-dimensional image (“The SLM 320 generates a computer generated hologram responsive to hologram instructions received from the controller 330”; [0045]); and
a viewing angle expansion plate (“amplitude mask 610”; [0077]) configured to expand a viewing angle of the three-dimensional image (“a maximum field of view can be increased by adding an amplitude mask to the SLM 320”; [0074]).
Lee fails to explicitly teach: the viewing angle expansion plate contacting the flat panel and comprising protruding portions that protrude from edges of the flat panel, wherein the viewing angle expansion plate comprises an optical diffuser configured to expand the viewing angle of the three-dimensional image.
However, in a related invention in the field of three-dimensional image display devices, Nakahara teaches in Figs. 7-8: the viewing angle expansion plate (“diffusion sheet 53”; [0059]) contacting the flat panel (“LED display unit 5”; [0057]) and comprising protruding portions that protrude from edges of the flat panel (see annotated Figure 1), wherein the viewing angle expansion plate (53) comprises an optical diffuser configured to expand the viewing angle of the three-dimensional image (“The diffusion sheet 53 diffuses the light from the LEDs 51, and emits the light”; [0059], the diffusion property of 53 inherently scatters the light into a more diffuse light field, thus this limitation is inherent to a diffuser).
Furthermore, Nakahara teaches this configuration such that “the diffusion sheet 53 is provided on the light emission side of the LEDs 51, and therefore a large light emission area can be provided even when using relatively small LEDs 51. Therefore, in addition to the advantages described in Embodiment 1, Embodiment 2 provides an advantage that light use efficiency (i.e., an aperture ratio) can be enhanced” (Nakahara, [0075]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to incorporate the teachings of Nakahara to provide a device in which the viewing angle expansion plate contacting the flat panel and comprising protruding portions that protrude from edges of the flat panel, wherein the viewing angle expansion plate comprises an optical diffuser configured to expand the viewing angle of the three-dimensional image, for the purpose of providing a large light emission area (Nakahara, [0075]).
PNG
media_image1.png
330
547
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: Annotated Fig. 8 of Nakahara showing the protrusions of 53
Regarding claim 2, Lee and Nakahara teach the flat panel display of claim 1. Lee fails to teach: wherein the optical diffuser comprises a ground glass or a semi-transmission film.
However, in a related invention in the field of three-dimensional image display devices, Nakahara teaches in Figs. 7-8: wherein the optical diffuser comprises a ground glass or a semi-transmission film (“The diffusion sheet 53 is formed of, for example, a ground glass”; [0059]).
Furthermore, Nakahara teaches this configuration such that “the diffusion sheet 53 is provided on the light emission side of the LEDs 51, and therefore a large light emission area can be provided even when using relatively small LEDs 51. Therefore, in addition to the advantages described in Embodiment 1, Embodiment 2 provides an advantage that light use efficiency (i.e., an aperture ratio) can be enhanced” (Nakahara, [0075]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to incorporate the teachings of Nakahara to provide a device in which wherein the optical diffuser comprises a ground glass or a semi-transmission film, for the purpose of providing a large light emission area (Nakahara, [0075]).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20170185037 A1), previously cited, and Nakahara (US 20130057954 A1), newly cited, and further in view of Toshiyuki (JPH11174377A), previously cited.
Regarding claim 3, Lee teaches, in Fig. 3 and 6: a method of operating a flat panel display, the flat panel display including: a light source (“source 305”; [0040], “beam conditioner 310”; [0041]) configured to emit parallel light (see parallel light output from 310);
a flat panel (“SLMs 320”; [0041]) on which the parallel light is incident (see Fig. 3), the flat panel (320) being configured to provide a three-dimensional image (“The SLM 320 generates a computer generated hologram responsive to hologram instructions received from the controller 330”; [0045]); and
a viewing angle expansion plate (“amplitude mask 610”; [0077]) configured to expand a viewing angle of the three-dimensional image (“a maximum field of view can be increased by adding an amplitude mask to the SLM 320”; [0074]).
Lee fails to teach: the viewing angle expansion plate including an optical diffuser configured to expand the viewing angle of the three-dimensional image, wherein the viewing angle expansion plate contacts the flat panel and further comprises protruding portions that protrude from edges of the flat panel the method comprising moving the optical diffuser during operation of the flat panel display.
However, in a related invention in the field of three-dimensional image display devices, Nakahara teaches in Figs. 7-8: the viewing angle expansion plate (“diffusion sheet 53”; [0059]) including an optical diffuser configured to expand the viewing angle of the three-dimensional image (“The diffusion sheet 53 diffuses the light from the LEDs 51, and emits the light”; [0059], the diffusion property of 53 inherently scatters the light into a more diffuse light field, thus this limitation is inherent to a diffuser),
wherein the viewing angle expansion plate (53) contacts the flat panel (“LED display unit 5”; [0057]) and further comprises protruding portions that protrude from edges of the flat panel (see annotated Figure 1).
Furthermore, Nakahara teaches this configuration such that “the diffusion sheet 53 is provided on the light emission side of the LEDs 51, and therefore a large light emission area can be provided even when using relatively small LEDs 51. Therefore, in addition to the advantages described in Embodiment 1, Embodiment 2 provides an advantage that light use efficiency (i.e., an aperture ratio) can be enhanced” (Nakahara, [0075]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to incorporate the teachings of Nakahara to provide a device in which the viewing angle expansion plate including an optical diffuser configured to expand the viewing angle of the three-dimensional image, wherein the viewing angle expansion plate contacts the flat panel and further comprises protruding portions that protrude from edges of the flat panel, for the purpose of providing a large light emission area (Nakahara, [0075]).
However, Nakahara fails to teach the method comprising moving the optical diffuser during operation of the flat panel display.
In a related invention in the field of three-dimensional imaging devices, Toshiyuki teaches in Fig. 34-36: the method comprising moving the optical diffuser during operation of the flat panel display. The method of moving the diffuser during operation could have been derived from the feature of Toshiyuki as disclosed in para [0036]: “The pinhole 4 moves at high speed in the entire area of the pinhole panel 3 at a constant cycle T” such that “The movement of the pinholes 4 may be, for example, a horizontal scan from top to bottom as shown in FIG. 2 or a vertical scan from right to left or left to right.”
Furthermore, Toshiyuki teaches this configuration such that “When a three-dimensional image is reproduced by an actual reproducing device using the moving image information obtained in this way, the three-dimensional image becomes a stereoscopic image” (Toshiyuki, [0082]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee and Nakahara to incorporate the teachings of Toshiyuki to provide a device in which includes the method comprising moving the optical diffuser during operation of the flat panel display, for the purpose of producing a three-dimensional image (Toshiyuki, [0082]).
Regarding claim 4, Lee, Nakahara, and Toshiyuki teach the method of claim 3. Lee fails to explicitly teach: the optical diffuser includes a ground glass or a semi-transmission film.
However, in a related invention in the field of three-dimensional image display devices, Nakahara teaches in Figs. 7-8: wherein the optical diffuser comprises a ground glass or a semi-transmission film (“The diffusion sheet 53 is formed of, for example, a ground glass”; [0059]).
Furthermore, Nakahara teaches this configuration such that “the diffusion sheet 53 is provided on the light emission side of the LEDs 51, and therefore a large light emission area can be provided even when using relatively small LEDs 51. Therefore, in addition to the advantages described in Embodiment 1, Embodiment 2 provides an advantage that light use efficiency (i.e., an aperture ratio) can be enhanced” (Nakahara, [0075]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to incorporate the teachings of Nakahara to provide a device in which wherein the optical diffuser comprises a ground glass or a semi-transmission film, for the purpose of providing a large light emission area (Nakahara, [0075]).
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 RUBY L KAUFFMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1738. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am - 5pm EST.
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, Thomas Pham can be reached at (571) 272-3689. 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.
/RUBY L KAUFFMAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/THOMAS K PHAM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights