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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 06/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Generally, Examiner notes that the claims seem to concentrate on describing the intended results from using the few claimed components but do not seem to recite adequate structure specifically configured to achieve the results. According to the Specification and the prior art, the intended results require at least a specific metalens with a specific optical and polarization properties, structural details that are omitted from the claims.
Regarding the newly amended language, Applicant argues: “According to FIG. 3 and paragraph [0014] of Lee, the directional NWGP layer 300, which the Office Action equates to the claimed metalens array, is formed by a plurality of wire grid lines extending in parallel along the NWGP direction. … Accordingly, Lee fails to disclose, teach, or suggest that "each of the plurality of metal lens units comprises a plurality of microstructures arranged in an array, a first direction is perpendicular to a second direction, the second direction is parallel to the display element, there is a first distance in the first direction between two adjacent microstructures of the plurality of microstructures, and there is a second distance in the second direction between two adjacent microstructures of the plurality of microstructures," as recited in amended claim 1.”
Examiner notes that (a) Lee remains relevant because the claim does not limit the second distance, and (b) Teng teaches lenticular lenses and aperture arrays that are spread at distances in two dimensions. See updated reasons for rejection below.
Applicant argues: “Specifically, Applicant respectfully submits that Lee, whether taken alone or in combination with Teng, is deficient to explicitly or inherently disclose at least the technical feature "during different time intervals, the same group of pixels among the plurality of pixels is used to provide different image information toward different viewing zones, thereby reducing a number of pixels, among the plurality of pixels, required to form a voxel" as set forth in the amended independent claim 1 for at least the reasons set forth below.”
Examiner notes that this is not a limitation on the structure of the claimed device, rather it is a statement that the claimed elements can be used (in combination with unclaimed elements) to produce an intended result. Prior art discloses the claimed elements and that they can be used in a substantively similar application to provide different image information to different view points using the same pixel groups. Prior art also notes that apertures can be endowed with polarization properties that enable them to perform extended functionality, a level of detail on how to achieve the intended functionality that is omitted in the claims. See updated reasons for rejection below.
Regarding the newly amended claim language in Claim 9: “Teng discloses guiding light to different viewing zones during different time intervals. However, the pixels in Teng continuously display a fixed image and do not provide different image information corresponding to different viewing zones based on different polarization states. …”
Examiner notes that there may be multiple ways to use the claimed structures to produce the intended results of Claim 9. For example, the functionality of the amended Claim 9 is addressed in Claims 2-3, in particular with respect to using the LCD layer to activate pixels for illuminating odd or even viewing zones based on different polarization of the light beam and of the corresponding aperture. See updated reasons for rejection below.
Claim Construction
Note that, for purposes of compact prosecution, multiple reasons for rejection may be provided for a claim or a part of the claim. The rejection reasons are cumulative, and Applicant should review all the stated reasons as guides to improving the claim language and advancing the prosecution toward an allowance.
Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed by a method claim, or by claim language that does not limit an apparatus claim to a particular structure. However, examples of claim language, although not exhaustive, that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim are: (A) “adapted to” or “adapted for” clauses; (B) “wherein” clauses; and (C) “whereby” clauses. M.P.E.P. 2111.04. Other examples are where the claim passively indicates that a function is performed or a structure is used without requiring that the function or structure is a limitation on the claim itself. The clause may be given some weight to the extent it provides "meaning and purpose” to the claimed invention but not when “it simply expresses the intended result” of the invention. In Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329, 74 USPQ2d 1481, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Further, during prosecution, claim language that may or may not be limiting should be considered non-limiting under the standard of the broadest reasonable interpretation. See M.P.E.P. 904.01(a); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 44 USPQ2d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Component arrangements or rearrangements which do not modify operation of the device cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947); In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (shifting the position of the starting switch was not patentable because it would not have modified the operation of the device.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220107452 to Lee (“Lee”) in view of US 20220229308 to Teng (“Teng”).
Regarding Claim 1: “A light field display apparatus, comprising:
a display element having a plurality of pixels; and (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, the display element can be embodied by a substrate with pixel driving circuits. See Specification, Paragraph 32. Prior art teaches this: “a display device, which includes: a display panel … wherein the display panel has a first substrate … active matrix layer disposed on the first side of the first substrate, wherein the active matrix layer comprises a plurality of pixel circuits corresponding to the pixels; wherein for each of the pixels, …” Lee, Paragraphs 6, 10, and similarly in 51, 61. See similar functionality in Teng, Paragraph 109.)
a polarizer disposed in an optical path of light emitted from the plurality of pixels; … a liquid crystal layer disposed on the polarizer; and … a metalens array disposed on the liquid crystal layer and comprising a plurality of meta lens units corresponding to the plurality of pixels, (First, note that “disposed on” is a vague structural relationship. Specification Paragraphs 28, 33 describe: “It should be understood that when an element such as a layer, film, region or substrate is referred to as being "on" or "connected to" another element, it means that the element is directly on or connected to the another element, or an intervening element may be provided therebetween … may optionally include a color filter.” Further, “The polarizer, the liquid crystal layer, and the metalens array are sequentially disposed on the plurality of pixels of the display element.” Specification, Paragraph 5. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, “disposed on” indicates an optically sequential relationship rather than a required physical contact.
Prior art teaches the above sequence of components in a substantively similar application: “the display panel is … LCD [liquid crystal] structure is controlled to allow the polarized light polarized by the polarizer layer to pass through the LCD structure and the directional NWGP layer, and to display the image,” where NWGP layer corresponds to the described metalens array (with a plurality of sub-units corresponding to a plurality of pixels) and optically overlaps the polarizer and the LCD structure. See Lee, Paragraph 7 and Figs. 2A and 2B.
Also note that “NWGP layer functions as a polarizer.” Lee, Paragraph 51. Similarly, the claimed metalens also reads on the color filter structures and/or the black matrix structures that are formed between the color filter structures described in Lee, Paragraph 51 and consistent with original Claims 5-8.
Cumulatively, note that metalens can also embody structures like the lenticular lenses and deflection aperture arrays in Teng that can be used in addition to or instead of the NWGP layer of Lee, if the object is to control deflection of light more precisely than just two levels. See ”The display screen 101 and the light-splitting device 102 construct a multi-view display structure 10,” where the light-splitting device 102 can be a lenticular grating, a slit array or a deflection aperture array. Teng, Paragraphs 103, 117, 9, Fig. 3. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to supplement the teachings of the display screen of Lee to use lenticular lenses or deflection apertures in combination with a display screen as taught in Teng, in order to “project multiple views to different viewing zones through a light-splitting device.” Teng, Paragraph 5.)
wherein each of the plurality of metalens units comprises a plurality of microstructures arranged in an array, a first direction is perpendicular to a second direction, the second direction is parallel to the display element, there is a first distance in the first direction between two adjacent microstructures of the plurality of microstructures, and there is a second distance in the second direction between two adjacent microstructures of the plurality of microstructures, (For example, “a deflection-aperture array composed of deflection apertures, which respectively correspond to different viewing zones” Teng, Paragraph 9 and Figs. 4-6, 8-9, 14 illustrating an array of apertures spaced in two orthogonal directions and having similar or different spacing in each of the orthogonal directions. See statement of motivation above.)
wherein the liquid crystal layer cooperates with the metalens array such that during different time intervals, the same group of pixels among the plurality of pixels is used to provide different image information toward different viewing zones, thereby reducing a number of pixels, among the plurality of pixels, required to form a voxel.” (This element must rejected for multiple cumulative reasons. First, note that this element describes an intended functionality of the apparatus as claimed above but does not require an additional limitation on the structure of the apparatus. Since the intended functionality is proposed to flow directly from the claim limitations above, this element is rejected for reasons stated for the limitations above. Second, note that prior art teaches variant embodiments of this functionality: Lee teaches that the display comprising the display components rejected above can display different images at different times and viewable in different viewing zones. See Lee Paragraph 50. Teng teaches additional embodiments of controlling a group of pixels of the display to display different images to different viewing zones and at different times, as “wherein, each deflection aperture guides the projected light beams from the corresponding pixel or subpixel group, which corresponds to the viewing zone being corresponded by this deflection aperture, to transmit to the observing zone for the eye”. See Teng, Paragraph 9. This can be done by activating individual pixels or individual deflection apertures as noted in Teng, Paragraph 109. See statement of motivation above.)
Regarding Claim 2: “The light field display apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein a switching element comprises the polarizer, the liquid crystal layer and the metalens array; (See rejection of the polarizer, the liquid crystal layer and the metalens array in Claim 1.)
a first light beam passing through the polarizer and the liquid crystal layer has a first polarization direction when the switching element is not enabled, (For example “In the first operational mode, the directional NWGP layer functions as a polarizer for the display panel, and the display panel may be used to display an image, … The polarizing directions of the polarizer layer 280 and the directional NWGP layer 230 (which may function as a polarizer) are perpendicular to each other,” thus, in this mode, NWGP acts as a polarizer and the light that passes through the layers has the first / NWGP polarization. Lee, Paragraphs 49, 51. See similarly in Teng, Paragraph 109.)
the first light beam having the first polarization direction and entering the metalens array at an incident angle is transmitted in a first transmission direction after passing through the metalens array, (“The polarizing directions of the polarizer layer 280 and the directional NWGP layer 230 (which may function as a polarizer) are perpendicular to each other,” thus, in this mode, NWGP acts as a polarizer and the light that passes through the layers has the first / NWGP polarization. Lee, Paragraphs 49, 51. See similarly in Teng, Paragraph 109.)
a second light beam passing through the polarizer and the liquid crystal layer has a second polarization direction when the switching element is enabled, the second polarization direction is substantially perpendicular to the first polarization direction, (“In the second operational mode, the display panel does not display an image, and an ambient light incident toward the display panel is at least partially reflected by the at least one pattern region of the directional NWGP layer to show a predesigned color pattern. … The polarizing directions of the polarizer layer 280 and the directional NWGP layer 230 (which may function as a polarizer) are perpendicular to each other.” Lee, Paragraphs 49, 51. Thus in the second mode where NWGP does not act as a polarizer, the polarization direction of the light traveling through the layers will correspond to the polarizer layer and thus perpendicular to the NWGP filtered light of the first mode. See similarly in Teng, Paragraph 109: “FIG. 8 shows an example that two adjacent deflection apertures are with two linear polarization states as the orthogonal characteristics, respectively. These two linear polarization states are with polarization directions perpendicular to each other, and are denoted with "." and "-", respectively.” Specifically, the deflection aperture A1 corresponding to the viewing zone VZ1 is with "-" characteristics, the deflection aperture A2 corresponding to the viewing zone VZ2 is with "." characteristics,)
the second light beam having the second polarization direction and entering the metalens array at the incident angle is transmitted in a second transmission direction after passing through the metalens array, and the first transmission direction is different from the second transmission direction.” (As noted above, in the first mode, the light is transmitted through NWGP layer (in one direction) and in the second mode the light is reflected from NWFP layer (in another direction). See Lee, Paragraphs 49, 51. See similarly in Teng, Paragraph 109 “Specifically, the deflection aperture A1 corresponding to the viewing zone VZ1 is with "-" characteristics, the deflection aperture A2 corresponding to the viewing zone VZ2 is with "." characteristics, … The characteristics of each deflection aperture can be endowed by an attached polarizer…” See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 3: “The light field display apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein a switching element comprises the polarizer, the liquid crystal layer and the metalens array; (See rejection of the polarizer, the liquid crystal layer and the metalens array in Claim 1.)
a 1st to Nth viewing zones are sequentially arranged, N is a positive integer greater than or equal to 2, (See an example viewing zones VZ1 – VZ9 in Teng, Paragraph 109, Figs. 1, 3, 20, 27. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
the 1st to Nth viewing zones include odd-numbered viewing zones and even-numbered viewing zones, (See an example viewing zones VZ1 – VZ9 include odd and even numbered viewing zones for each pixel in Teng, Paragraph 109, Figs. 1, 3, 27. Also note the embodiments in Figs. 20-27 with a number of different zones of pixels that can be deflected to the particular viewing zones, also having odd and even numbering exemplified as 1-4. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
the plurality of pixels from the display element and a first light beam passing through the polarizer, the liquid crystal layer, and the metalens array are guided to one of the odd-numbered viewing zones and the even-numbered viewing zones when the switching element is not enabled, and (For example see Teng, Fig. 20, with the pixels being guided to one zone having 1-4 pixel zones under the first mode (i.e. switching is not enabled) and switched to another zone having 1-4 pixel zones in the second mode (i.e. switching is enabled), which can be perfomed in a variety of variations as in Teng, Paragraph 109, and Figs. 20-27. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
the plurality of pixels from the display element and a second light beam passing through the polarizer, the liquid crystal layer, and the metalens array are guided to the other one of the odd-numbered viewing zones and the even-numbered viewing zones when the switching element is enabled.” (For example see Teng, Fig. 20, with the pixels being guided to one zone having 1-4 pixel zones under the first mode (i.e. switching is not enabled) and switched to another zone having 1-4 pixel zones in the second mode (i.e. switching is enabled), which can be perfomed in a variety of variations as in Teng, Paragraph 109, and Figs. 20-27. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
Regarding 4: “The light field display apparatus according to claim 1, wherein
the polarizer has a transmission axis, the first direction is parallel to the transmission axis, a third direction is perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction, (See the polarizer layer 280 in Figs. 2A and 2B having three dimensions “wherein the polarizer layer has a polarizing direction perpendicular to the NWGP direction and the vertical direction;” Lee, Paragraphs 7, 51.)
each microstructure has a first dimension, a second dimension, and a third dimension respectively in the first direction, the second direction, and the third direction, (Similarly see the embodiments of the metalens, “of color filter structures 270 … and a plurality of black matrix structures 275 … and the directional NWGP layer 230” in Figs. 2A and 2B, all having three dimensions. Lee, Paragraph, 51. Also see three dimensions of the deflection aperture array in Teng, Figs. 4-6, 8-9 and statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
the plurality of third dimensions of the plurality of microstructures are substantially the same, the plurality of first dimensions of at least part of the microstructures are different, and the plurality of second dimensions of at least part of the plurality of microstructures are different.” (Similarly see the embodiments of the metalens, “of color filter structures 270 … and a plurality of black matrix structures 275 … and the directional NWGP layer 230” in Figs. 2A and 2B, all having three dimensions wherein the depth dimension is a function of the layer and is required to be substantially the same while the length and width dimensions are not required to be the same for each structure and vary in correspondence with pixel geometry and location. See, Lee, Paragraph, 51. For example, the “space between two adjacent ones of the wire grid lines is in a range between 50 nm and 100 nm, a width of each of the wire grid lines is in a range between 50 nm and 100 nm, and a height of each of the wire grid lines along the vertical direction is in a range between 150 nm and 350 nm.” Lee, Paragraph, 15. Also see three dimensions of the deflection aperture array in Teng, Figs. 4-6, 8-9, 14 where the depth of the apertures may be consistent, but the horizontal and vertical location may vary. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 5: “The light field display apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the polarizer has a transmission axis, the first direction is parallel to the transmission axis, one of the plurality of microstructures has a first dimension in the first direction, and a ratio of the first dimension to the first distance falls within a range of 0.1 to 0.9.” (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, the dimension of the metalens microstructures are 0.1 to 0.9 times smaller than the distance between the structures. In Lee, the embodiments of the metalens, “of color filter structures 270 … and a plurality of black matrix structures 275 … and the directional NWGP layer 230” in Figs. 2A and 2B, are all illustrated with dimensions within the claimed range. Also see similar ranges of these dimensions in the deflection aperture array in Teng, Figs. 4-6, 8-9 and statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 6: “The light field display apparatus according to claim 5, wherein one of the microstructures has a second dimension in the second direction, and a ratio of the second dimension to the second distance falls within a range of 0.1 to 0.9.” (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, the dimension of the metalens microstructures are 0.1 to 0.9 times smaller than the distance between the structures. In Lee, the embodiments of the metalens, are two dimensional arrays “of color filter structures 270 … and a plurality of black matrix structures 275 … and the directional NWGP layer 230” that correspond to individual pixel locaitons, with a cross sectional views in Figs. 2A and 2B, are all illustrated with horizontal dimensions within the claimed range. Also see similar ranges of these dimensions in the deflection aperture array in Teng, Figs. 4-6, 8-9 and statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 7: “The light field display apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of pixels comprise a first pixel and a second pixel for respectively displaying a first color and a second color, the plurality of metalens units comprise a first metalens unit and a second metalens unit respectively overlapping the first pixel and the second pixel, and a structure of the first metalens unit is different from a structure of the second metalens unit.” (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, this claim the first, second, and third metalens units can be different color filters that correspond to the first, second, and third pixel respectively. Lee, Figs. 2A and 2B illustrate this as R, G, B color filter structures 270 that correspond to the individual pixels. See Lee, Paragraph 51 and similarly in Teng, Paragraph 112.)
Regarding Claim 8: “The light field display apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the plurality of pixels further comprise a third pixel for displaying a third color, the plurality of metalens units further comprise a third metalens unit overlapping the third pixel, and the structure of the first metalens unit, the structure of the second metalens unit, and a structure of the third metalens unit are different from one another.” (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, this claim the first, second, and third metalens units can be different color filters that correspond to the first, second, and third pixel respectively. Lee, Figs. 2A and 2B illustrate this as R, G, B color filter structures 270 that correspond to the individual pixels. See Lee, Paragraph 51 and similarly in Teng, Paragraph 112.)
Regarding Claim 9: “A light field display apparatus, comprising:
a display element having a plurality of pixels (See reasons for rejection in Claims 1 and 2.)
wherein a second light beam from the one of the plurality of pixels has a second polarization direction after passing through the liquid crystal layer in the second state, the second light beam having the second polarization direction and passing through the metalens array is guided to a second viewing zone, the second light beam has second image information corresponding to the second viewing zone, the first viewing zone and the second viewing zone are different, and the first image information is different from the second image information, (This element must rejected for multiple cumulative reasons. First, note that this element describes an intended functionality of the apparatus as claimed above but does not require the additional or particular limitations on the structure of the apparatus that particularly implements that functionality based on the claimed structures. Since the intended functionality is proposed to flow directly from the claim limitations above, this element is rejected for reasons stated for the limitations above. Cumulatively, this functionality is rejected for reasons stated for Claims 2 and 3.)
wherein the liquid crystal layer cooperates with the metalens array such that, during different time intervals, the same group of pixels among the plurality of pixels is used to provide different image information toward different viewing zones, thereby reducing a number of pixels, among the plurality of pixels, required to form a voxel” (This element must rejected for multiple cumulative reasons. First, note that this element describes an intended functionality of the apparatus as claimed above but does not require the additional or particular limitations on the structure of the apparatus that particularly implements that functionality based on the claimed structures. Since the intended functionality is proposed to flow directly from the claim limitations above, this element is rejected for reasons stated for the limitations above. Cumulatively, this functionality is rejected for reasons stated in Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 10: “The light field display apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the first image information and the second image information correspond to different viewing zones such that a three-dimensional image is formed after being received by human eyes.” (First, note that this element describes an intended functionality of the apparatus as claimed above but does not require an additional limitation on the structure of the apparatus. Since the intended functionality is proposed to flow directly from the previous claim limitations, this element is rejected for reasons stated for the limitations in Claim 9. Cumulatively, note that Teng teaches: “Here, a multi-view display structure is employed to project multiple views to different viewing zones through a light-splitting device,” by control of the backlight directions, the pixel values, the deflection apertures at different time points. Teng, Paragraphs 5, 24-25. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
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 MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH whose telephone number is (571)270-7940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thu. 9am - 8pm.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at (571)272-7383. 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.
/MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights