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.
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant’s amendment filed May 1, 2026. Claims 1-17 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 1, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regard to independent claim 1, applicant’s arguments, on pages 8-10 of the Remarks, 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 newly cited rejection, necessitated by amendment, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as set forth below.
Therefore, claims 1-17 are rejected, as set forth below.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities. The word “structured” should be replaced with “structure” in line 2 of the claim in order to correct what appears to be a typographical error. 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, 5-11, 13, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tachi et al. (US 2008/0043014 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Tachi et al. discloses a display device 1 (denoted “display apparatus, see e.g. Figure 2 and paragraph [0030]), comprising (see e.g. Figure 2):
a display structure 5 (denoted “light-emitting element array structure”, see e.g. Figure 2 and paragraph [0030]);
an optical structure 8 (denoted “light-shielding portions”, see e.g. Figure 2 and paragraph [0030]) disposed at a side of the display structure 5; and
an actuator mechanism (see e.g. paragraph [0030] where it is noted that an driving structure for rotation exits but is not shown in the figures);
wherein the optical structure 8 includes a plurality of optical elements (i.e. arrangement of slits and light shielding portions), the display structure 5 includes a display surface (i.e. surfaces of elements 5), and the display surface includes a plurality of pixels (note the display surface of light emitting elements in 5 may be divided into pixels) respectively corresponding to the plurality of optical elements (i.e. of optical structure 8);
wherein the actuator mechanism drives one or both of the display structure 5 and the optical structure to travel along a motion path 8 while maintaining a constant distance therebetween in a direction perpendicular to the display structure 5 and the optical structure 8 (see e.g. Figure 2 and paragraph [0030]),
wherein the motion path defines a plurality of moves in sequence (see e.g. paragraph [0030] and for movement and note that any motion path may be broken into a plurality of moves in sequence), and
a plurality of virtual images are brought up in response to each of the moves (see e.g. paragraph [0030] for stereoscopic image).
It is further noted that the limitation, “wherein the actuator mechanism drives one or both of the display structure and the optical structure to travel along a motion path while maintaining a constant distance therebetween in a direction perpendicular to the display structure and the optical structure, wherein the motion path defines a plurality of moves in sequence, and a plurality of virtual images are brought up in response to each of the moves” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, the device of Tachi et al. satisfies the functional limitations, as set forth above.
In regard to claim 2, Tachi et al. discloses the limitations of claim 1, as cited above, and
each virtual image per move defines a plurality of angle-view image in correspondence with a plurality of angles due to one or ones of optical members (i.e. of element 8, see e.g. Figure 2 and paragraph [0030] and note that the relative movement of elements 5 and 8 results in a stereoscopic image and thus will have an image in correspondence with a plurality of angles).
In regard to claim 3, Tachi et al. discloses the limitations of claim 1, as cited above, and
wherein the actuator mechanism (see e.g. paragraph [0030] where it is noted that an driving structure for rotation exits but is not shown in the figures) drives at least one of the display structure 5 or the plurality of optical elements (i.e. of element 8) traveling along the motion path with a periodical cycle (see e.g. Figure 2 and paragraph [0030]).
In regard to claim 5, Tachi et al. discloses the limitations of claim 1, as cited above, and
wherein the actuator mechanism (see e.g. paragraph [0030] where it is noted that an driving structure for rotation exits but is not shown in the figures) drives one or both of the display structure 5 and the optical structure 8 traveling along a motion path within a time frame (see e.g. Figure 2 and paragraph [0030]), in which the motion path defines a plurality of moves in sequence, and the moves are implemented within the time frame (see e.g. Figures 2 and paragraph [0030] and note that the motion path may be divided into a plurality of moves that are implemented in a time frame).
It is further noted that 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 plurality 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 device of Tachi et al. may be operated to achieve the limitation, as set forth in the above rejection.
In regard to claim 6, Tachi et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein the optical structure 8 and the display structure 5 define a relative-motion relationship therebetween (see e.g. Figure 2 and paragraph [0030]).
In regard to claim 7, Tachi et al. discloses the limitations of claim 5 as cited above, and
wherein the motion path of the optical structure 8 is in parallel with the motion path of the display structure 5 (see e.g. Figure 2 and paragraph [0030]).
In regard to claim 8, Tachi et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 5 above, and
wherein at least one projection of the motion path of the optical structure 8 is in parallel with the motion path of the display structure 5 (see e.g. Figure 2 and paragraph [0030]).
In regard to claim 9, Tachi et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 5 above, and
wherein the motion path of the optical structure 8 is in a first direction, and the motion path of the display structure 5 is in a second direction different from the first direction (see e.g. paragraph [0030] and Figure 2 for opposite directions).
In regard to claim 10, Tachi et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 9 above, and
wherein the motion path of the optical structure 8 is in a first direction, and the motion path of the display structure 5 is in a second reverse to the first direction (see e.g. paragraph [0030] and Figure 2 for opposite directions).
In regard to claim 11, Tachi et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein the display structure stays still, and the optical structure travels along the motion path (see e.g. paragraph [0011]).
In regard to claim 13, Tachi et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein the display surface 5 is common- flat or curved-planed (see e.g. Figure 2).
In regard to claim 15, Tachi et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein each of the optical elements (i.e. of 8) is a single component or an assembly comprising multiple elements (see e.g. Figure 2).
In regard to claim 16, Tachi et al. 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 2).
In regard to claim 17, Tachi et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and wherein an original image provided by the pixels of the display structure altered per move (see e.g. paragraph [0042] and note that the pixels will emit different colors based on position).
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 Tachi et al. (US 2008/0043014 A1).
In regard to claim 4, Tachi et al. 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 Tachi et al. 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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tachi et al. (US 2008/0043014 A1) in view of Xu (US 2017/0269353 A1).
In regard to claim 12, Tachi et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the optical structure stays still, and the display structure travels along the motion path.
However, Xu discloses
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).
Given the teachings of Xu, 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 Tachi et al. with wherein the optical structure stays still, and the display structure travels along the motion path.
Providing a still optical structure while the display structure moves would provide an art recognized equivalent means for relative motion between the structures.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tachi et al. (US 2008/0043014 A1) in view of Riaziat et al. (US 2007/0247519 A1).
In regard to claim 14, Tachi et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the optical structure 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.
However, Riaziat et al. discloses
wherein the optical structure 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. paragraph [0009] for lenticular screen).
Given the teachings of Riaziat 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 Tachi et al. with wherein the optical structure 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.
Providing a lenticular device would be an art recognized equivalent to a parallax device in order to achieve the desired 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: T. Endo, Y. Kajiki, T. Honda and M. Sato, "Cylindrical 3-D video display observable from all directions," Proceedings the Eighth Pacific Conference on Computer Graphics and Applications, Hong Kong, China, 2000, pp. 300-306, doi: 10.1109/PCCGA.2000.883953.
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 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
Prosecution Insights