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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species 1a, 2a, and 3a in the reply filed on October 10, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “there is no undue burden on the examiner to consider all the claims in the single application” and that “claim 1 should be in condition for allowance”. This is not found persuasive because the species are independent or distinct because the claims to the different species recite the mutually exclusive characteristics of such species, such as the configuration of the components, which are not considered obvious variants based on the current record. Further, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), as set forth below, and is thus not currently considered in condition for allowance.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
In applicant’s response, claims 1, 3, 13, 15, and 16 were indicated as reading on the elected species. However, upon examination of the claims, it appears that claims 1-17 read on the elected species and are examined as set forth below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Figures 1a,-1c, 3a-3c, and 4 include reference character 22 that is not included in the description. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities.
In line 5 of claim 1, “a plural of optical elements” should be replaced with “a plurality of optical elements” and in line 7 “the plural of optical elements should be replaced with “the plurality of optical elements” in order to correct what appear to be typographical errors.
In line 6 of claim 1, “a plural of pixels” should be replaced with “a plurality of pixels” in order to correct what appears to be a typographical error.
In lines 9-10 of claim 1, “a plural of moves” should be replaced with “a plurality of moves” in order to correct what appears to be a typographical error.
In line 10 of claim 1, “a plural of virtual images” should be replaced with “a plurality of virtual images” in order to correct what appears to be a typographical error.
Similar typographical errors are present throughout the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 5-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xu (US 2017/0269353 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Xu discloses a display device (see e.g. Figure 4 where the display comprises at least the display 404, micro-lens element 402 and actuator 406), comprising (see e.g. Figure 4):
a display structure 404 (denoted “display”, see e.g. paragraph [0043] and Figure 4);
an optical structure 402 (denoted “micro-lens array”, see e.g. paragraph [0043] and Figure 4) disposed at a side of the display structure 404; and
an actuator mechanism 406 (denoted “precision actuator”, see e.g. paragraph [0043] and Figure 4);
wherein the optical structure 402 includes a plural of optical elements 402n (denoted “micro-lens elements”, see e.g. paragraph [0043] and Figure 4)),
the display structure 404 includes a display surface (see e.g. Figure 4 and note that display structure 404 has a plurality of surfaces), and
the display surface includes a plural of pixels 404n (“denoted display pixels”, see e.g. paragraph [0043] and Figure 4) respectively corresponding to the plural of optical elements 402n (see e.g. Figure 4 and note that 402n and 404n appear to correspond in a one-to-one manner);
wherein the actuator mechanism 406 drives one or both of the display structure 404 and the optical structure 402 to travel along a motion path (see e.g. Figure 4 and paragraph [0043] and note that the actuator is provided to move the micro-lens array relative to the display),
in which the motion path defines a plural of moves in sequence (see e.g. paragraph [0043] and note that an actuator may be adjusted so as to move in series of moves in sequence. The limitation, “in which the motion path defines a plural of moves in sequence” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, the device of Xu et al. may have the actuator configured to move in a plurality of moves in a sequence. Further, the limitation, “in which the motion path defines a plural of moves in sequence” appears to be an intended use limitation. 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 Xu et al. is cable of performing “in which the motion path defines a plural of moves in sequence” and thus meets the limitations of the claim.); and
a plural of virtual images are brought up in response to each of the moves (see e.g. paragraph [0044] where it is noted that the virtual image moves in response to the movement of the micro-lens array 402).
In regard to claim 2, Xu discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
each virtual image per move defines a plural of angle-view image in correspondence with a plural of angles due to one or ones of optical members 402n (see e.g. paragraph [0044] and note that position of the virtual image changes in response to the movement of the micro-lens array 402, thus an angle will be different).
In regard to claim 3, Xu discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein the actuator mechanism 406 drives at least one of the display structure or the plural optical elements 402n traveling along the motion path with a periodical cycle (see e.g. paragraph [0043] and Figure 4. Note that the limitation, “in which the motion path defines a plural of moves in sequence” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, the device of Xu et al. may be moved in a periodical cycle).
In regard to claim 5, Xu discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the actuator mechanism 406 drives one or both of the display structure 404 and the optical structure 402n traveling along a motion path within a time frame, in which the motion path defines a plural of moves in sequence, and the moves are implemented within the time frame (see e.g. paragraphs [0008], [0011], and [0014] where it is noted that the microlens component is movable, the display is movable, or both are movable. Further, the limitation, “wherein the actuator mechanism drives one or both of the display structure and the optical structure traveling along a motion path within a time frame, in which the motion path defines a plural of moves in sequence, and the moves are implemented within the time frame” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, the actuator of Xu may be operated to move along the motion path within a time frame, as set forth in the claim).
In regard to clam 6, Xu discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein the optical structure 402 and the display structure 404 define a relative-motion relationship therebetween (see e.g. paragraphs [0008], [0011], and [0014] where it is noted that the microlens component is movable, the display is movable, or both are movable, thus defining a relative motion relationship).
In regard to claim 7, Xu discloses the limitations as applied to claim 5 above, and
wherein the motion path of the optical structure 402 is in parallel with the motion path of the display structure 404 (see e.g. Figure 4 and paragraphs [0008], [0011], and [0014] and note that the limitation, “wherein the motion path of the optical structure is in parallel with the motion path of the display structure” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, the actuator of Xu may be operated to move along a parallel motion path, as set forth in the claim).
In regard to claim 8, Xu discloses the limitations as applied to claim 5 above, and
wherein at least one projection of the motion path of the optical structure 402 is in parallel with the motion path of the display structure 404 (see e.g. Figure 4 and paragraphs [0008], [0011], and [0014] and note that the limitation, “wherein at least one projection of the motion path of the optical structure is in parallel with the motion path of the display structure” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, the actuator of Xu may be operated to move along a parallel motion path, satisfying the claim).
In regard to claim 9, Xu discloses the limitations as applied to claim 5 above, and
wherein the motion path of the optical structure 402 is in a first direction, and the motion path of the display structure 404 is in a second direction different from the first direction (see e.g. Figure 4 and paragraphs [0008], [0011], and [0014] and note that the limitation, “wherein the motion path of the optical structure is in a first direction, and the motion path of the display structured is in a second direction different from the first direction” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, the actuator of Xu may be operated to have the optical structure and display structure to move in different directions).
In regard to claim 10, Xu discloses the limitations as applied to claim 9 above, and
wherein the motion path of the optical structure 402 is in a first direction, and the motion path of the display structure 404 is in a second reverse to the first direction (see e.g. Figure 4 and paragraphs [0008], [0011], and [0014] and note that the limitation, “wherein the motion path of the optical structure is in a first direction, and the motion path of the display structured is in a second reverse to the first direction” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, the actuator of Xu may be operated to have the optical structure and display structure to move in reverse directions from each other).
In regard to claim 11, Xu discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein the display structure 404 stays still, and the optical structure 402 travels along the motion path (see e.g. paragraph [0008] and Figure 4).
In regard to claim 12, Xu discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein the optical structure 402 stays still, and the display structure 404 travels along the motion path (see e.g. paragraph [0011] and Figure 4).
In regard to claim 13, Xu discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein the display surface is common-flat or curved-planed (see e.g. Figure 4 where the surface of the display panel follows a flat shape).
In regard to claim 14, Xu discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein the optical structure 402 includes a micro-lens array, a projecting lens-array unit accompanied with a multiple-lens system, a metasurface layer, a grating or a lenticular lens assembly (see e.g. Figure 4 and paragraph [0043] for micro-lens array).
In regard to claim 15, Xu discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein each of the optical elements 402 is a single component or an assembly comprising multiple elements (see e.g. Figure 4 where the micro lens array could be considered and integral single component or an assembly of individual components).
In regard to claim 16, Xu discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein the motion path is a straight line, a curved line or a combination thereof (see e.g. Figure 4 and paragraphs [0008], [0011], and [0014] and note that the limitation, “wherein the motion path is a straight line, a curved line or a combination thereof” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, the actuator of Xu may be operated to have the optical structure and display structure to move in a straight line).
In regard to claim 17, Xu discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein an original image provided by the pixels of the display structure 404 is altered per move (see e.g. paragraph [0044] and note that position of the virtual image changes in response to the movement of the micro-lens array 402, thus an angle will be different, thus altering the image).
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (US 2017/0269353 A1).
In regard to claim 4, Xu discloses the limitations as applied to claim 3 above, but fails to disclose
wherein a resolution of the virtual image is multiple times of a resolution of the display structure.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein a resolution of the virtual image is multiple times of a resolution of the display structure, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
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 Xu with wherein a resolution of the virtual image is multiple times of a resolution of the display structure.
Selecting the characteristics of the optical structure and the relative distances would result in an optimized resolution of the virtual image.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following reference is cited for disclosing related limitations of the applicant’s claimed and disclosed invention: Uehara et al. (US 2004/0041747 A1).
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