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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/04/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 02/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the newly amended language, 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" as set forth in the amended independent claim 1 for at least the reasons set forth below. [Emphasis added for visual aid only]”
Examiner notes that Applicant seems to tout how great the intended results are, but does not limit the apparatus claims to structures that are narrowly tailored to achieve such results. Claimed structures are generically used in displays to achieve a wide range of functionality. See updated reasons for rejection below.
Examiner suggests elaborating on the unique structures of the apparatus that Applicant believes to achieve the intended results.
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 1-11 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 comprises 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 apertures 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 or a slit array. Teng, Paragraphs 103, 117, 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 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” (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 “pixels of a pixel group are distributed throughout the display screen 101”. See Teng, Paragraphs 103-104. 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.)
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.)
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, a first direction is parallel to the transmission axis, a second direction is perpendicular to the first direction and parallel to the display element, 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 metalens unit comprises a plurality of microstructures arranged in an array, 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.)
the plurality of third dimensions of the 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 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.)
Regarding Claim 5: “The light field display apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the polarizer has a transmission axis, a first direction is parallel to the transmission axis, each metalens unit comprises a plurality of microstructures, adjacent two of the microstructures have a first distance in the first direction, one of the 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.)
Regarding Claim 6: “The light field display apparatus according to claim 5, wherein a second direction is perpendicular to the first direction and parallel to the display element, adjacent two of the microstructures have a second distance in the second direction, one of the microstructures has a second dimension in the second direction, and a ratio of the second dimension to the second distance f alls 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.)
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; and a switching element disposed on the display element, wherein the switching element comprises: a polarizer; a liquid crystal layer; and a metalens array overlapping the plurality of pixels, wherein the polarizer, the liquid crystal layer, and the metalens array are sequentially disposed on the plurality of pixels of the display element, (See reasons for rejection in Claims 1 and 2.)
wherein, during a first time interval, the plurality of pixels provides first image information toward a first group of viewing zones, and during a second time interval, the same plurality of pixels provides second image information toward a second group of viewing zones.” (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 pixels and 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 “pixels of a pixel group are distributed throughout the display screen 101”. See Teng, Paragraphs 103-104. 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 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.)
Regarding Claim 11: “The light field display apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the plurality of pixels comprises a same group of pixels used to provide the first image information and the second image information.” (For example the same group of pixels such as P1-P9 can provide different images to different viewing zones at different time points. See Teng, Figs. 23-25 and 27. Also note that the same group of pixels can be directed and redirected to send image information to different viewing zones at different times by controlling the pixel values, the backlight values and directions, and the deflection apertures, where the “characteristics can be compounded together for getting more states, so that more sub-deflection apertures can be assigned to a viewing zone,” thus programmable to achieve many different multiview effects using the same set of pixels. Teng, Paragraphs 5, 24-25, 114. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
Conclusion
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