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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/12/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
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) and further in view of Takanori (JP-H11194702-A).
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 comprises an optical diffuser.
However, in a related invention in the field of three-dimensional imaging devices, Takanori teaches in Fig. 43: the viewing angle expansion plate (see para [0144] which describes a three dimensional imaging system) comprises an optical diffuser (“The screen 171 onto which the three-dimensional image is projected is, for example, a semi-transparent screen (for example, frosted glass-like screen)”; [0145]).
Furthermore, Takanori teaches this configuration such that “In addition to projecting the reproduced three-dimensional image, a predetermined lens 173 is provided between the screen 171 and the driver, and the projected image of the three-dimensional image projected on the screen 171 is magnified by the lens 173 to drive the driver. To make it visible” (Takanori, [0144]).
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 Takanori to provide a device in which the viewing angle expansion plate comprises an optical diffuser, for the purpose of projecting the three dimensional image to the viewer (Takanori, [0144]).
Regarding claim 2, Lee and Takanori teach the flat panel display of claim 1. Lee fails to teach: the optical diffuser comprises a ground glass or a semi-transmission film.
However, Takanori teaches in Fig. 43: the optical diffuser comprises a ground glass or a semi-transmission film (“The screen 171 onto which the three-dimensional image is projected is, for example, a semi-transparent screen (for example, frosted glass-like screen)”; [0145]).
Furthermore, Takanori teaches this configuration such that “In addition to projecting the reproduced three-dimensional image, a predetermined lens 173 is provided between the screen 171 and the driver, and the projected image of the three-dimensional image projected on the screen 171 is magnified by the lens 173 to drive the driver. To make it visible” (Takanori, [0144]).
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 Takanori to provide a device in which the optical diffuser comprises a ground glass or a semi-transmission film, for the purpose of projecting the three dimensional image (Takanori, [0144]).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20170185037 A1) and Takanori (JP-H11194702-A) and further in view of Toshiyuki (JPH11174377A).
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]).
However, Lee fails to explicitly teach: the viewing angle expansion plate including an optical diffuser, 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 imaging devices, Takanori teaches in Fig. 43: the viewing angle expansion plate (see para [0144] which describes a three dimensional imaging system) comprises an optical diffuser (“The screen 171 onto which the three-dimensional image is projected is, for example, a semi-transparent screen (for example, frosted glass-like screen)”; [0145]).
Furthermore, Takanori teaches this configuration such that “In addition to projecting the reproduced three-dimensional image, a predetermined lens 173 is provided between the screen 171 and the driver, and the projected image of the three-dimensional image projected on the screen 171 is magnified by the lens 173 to drive the driver. To make it visible” (Takanori, [0144]).
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 Takanori to provide a device in which the viewing angle expansion plate comprises an optical diffuser, for the purpose of projecting the three dimensional image to the viewer (Takanori, [0144]).
However, Takanori 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 to incorporate the teachings of Takanori and Toshiyuki to provide a device in which the viewing angle expansion plate including an optical diffuser, and 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, Takanori, 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, Takanori teaches in Fig. 43: the optical diffuser comprises a ground glass or a semi-transmission film (“The screen 171 onto which the three-dimensional image is projected is, for example, a semi-transparent screen (for example, frosted glass-like screen)”; [0145]).
Furthermore, Takanori teaches this configuration such that “In addition to projecting the reproduced three-dimensional image, a predetermined lens 173 is provided between the screen 171 and the driver, and the projected image of the three-dimensional image projected on the screen 171 is magnified by the lens 173 to drive the driver. To make it visible” (Takanori, [0144]).
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 Takanori to provide a device in which the optical diffuser comprises a ground glass or a semi-transmission film, for the purpose of projecting the three dimensional image (Takanori, [0144]).
Conclusion
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