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 .
Claim Amendments – Proper Form
The claim amendments filed February 12, 2024 fail to comply with the proper manner of making amendments according to MPEP § 714, Section II, Subsection C (citing Rule 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(c)(2)). Specifically, the claim amendments repeatedly use strike-through to show the deletion of the single letter “s” in the word “claims” (and the deletion of numbers). As explained in MPEP § 714(II)(C), when strike-through cannot be easily perceived (e.g., due to deletion of a single character or punctuation mark), double brackets must be used instead (i.e., claim[[s]] instead of claimclaim).
Future claim amendments which do not comply with proper form may result in a Notice of Non-Compliant Amendment. Applicant’s cooperation in this matter is appreciated.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Itoh, US 2013/0093861 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Itoh discloses: A light-ray modulating element
wherein the light-ray modulating element is applied to a 3D displaying system, the 3D displaying system comprises a 3D displaying device, and the 3D displaying device comprises a display panel, and a lens unit disposed at a light exiting side of the display panel (stereoscopic image display device having light guiding plate 4, lens array 6, and deflecting unit 7; paragraphs [0028], [0036], [0088] and FIGS. 1, 2 of Itoh);
wherein light rays emitted by the display panel pass through the lens unit, are shot to the light-ray modulating element, and form two first viewpoint units at a light entering side of the light-ray modulating element, each of the first viewpoint units comprises at least two first viewpoints (light from laser light source 2 is emitted by light guiding plate 4, passes through lens array 6, and is shot to deflecting unit 7, and forms multiple viewpoint units at a light entering side of deflecting unit 7; paragraphs [0028], [0036] and FIGS. 1, 2 of Itoh); and
the light-ray modulating element is configured for converging light rays emitted by each of the first viewpoint units to form a second viewpoint unit, so that all of viewpoints of the second viewpoint unit enter a corresponding single-eye pupil at a same time, wherein the second viewpoint unit comprises at least two second viewpoints (deflecting unit 7 converges light rays emitted by the multiple viewpoint units to form multiple second viewpoints, each entering a single eye pupil; paragraphs [0028], [0036] and FIGS. 1, 2 of Itoh).
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itoh in view of Zhang et al., US 2018/0314075 A1.
Regarding Claim 7, Itoh discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein the light-ray modulating element comprises a liquid-crystal modulating element (liquid crystal panel 8; FIGS. 1, 2 of Itoh).
Itoh does not appear to disclose further details of the liquid crystal modulating element such that: the liquid-crystal modulating element comprises a first substrate and a second substrate that face each other, a liquid-crystal layer and an electrode layer, the liquid-crystal layer is disposed between the first substrate and the second substrate, and the electrode layer is disposed at at least one side of the liquid-crystal layer; the first substrate is closer to the display panel than the second substrate is; and the liquid-crystal layer is configured for, under an effect of an electric field generated by the electrode layer, being capable of modulating a phase of incident light rays.
Zhang is related to Itoh with respect to stereoscopic display device.
Zhang teaches: the liquid-crystal modulating element comprises a first substrate and a second substrate that face each other, a liquid-crystal layer and an electrode layer, the liquid-crystal layer is disposed between the first substrate and the second substrate, and the electrode layer is disposed at at least one side of the liquid-crystal layer; the first substrate is closer to the display panel than the second substrate is; and the liquid-crystal layer is configured for, under an effect of an electric field generated by the electrode layer, being capable of modulating a phase of incident light rays (liquid crystal grating 02 on display screen 01, the liquid crystal grating 02 having upper and lower substrates 021, 028 which can have strip electrodes 023 and planar electrode 024, respectively; paragraphs [0002], [0014], [0015], [0023] and FIGS. 1, 2 of Zhang).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the liquid crystal configuration of Zhang for the device of Itoh because such arrangement enables reduced use of a substrate thereby reducing a placing height and thus a viewing distance can be reduced, and can reach a miniaturization compatible with cellphone use, as taught in paragraph [0021] of Zhang.
Regarding Claim 8, Itoh-Zhang discloses the limitations of Claim 7 and further discloses: wherein the electrode layer comprises a first electrode and a second electrode, and the first electrode and the second electrode are disposed at two opposite sides of the liquid-crystal layer; and the first electrode comprises a plurality of strip electrodes, and the second electrode comprises a planar electrode (liquid crystal grating 02 on display screen 01, the liquid crystal grating 02 having upper and lower substrates 021, 028 which can have strip electrodes 023 and planar electrode 024, respectively; paragraphs [0002], [0014], [0015], [0023] and FIGS. 1, 2 of Zhang).
Regarding Claim 9, Itoh-Zhang discloses the limitations of Claim 7 and further discloses: wherein the liquid-crystal modulating element further comprises a polarizer, and the polarizer is disposed at one side of the first substrate close to the display panel (lower polarizing sheet 029 disposed at lower substrate 028 which is closer to display screen 01; paragraphs [0002], [0014], [0015], [0023] and FIGS. 1, 2 of Zhang).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itoh in view of Khazova et al., US 2005/0063029 A1.
Regarding Claims 10 and 11, Itoh discloses the limitations of Claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein the light-ray modulating element comprises a holographic interference element of at least one wavelength, wherein when the light- ray modulating element comprises holographic interference elements of multiple wavelengths, the light-ray modulating element comprises a red-light-wavelength holographic interference element, a green-light-wavelength holographic interference element and a blue-light-wavelength holographic interference element that are arranged in layer configuration.
Khazova is related to Itoh with respect to stereoscopic display device.
Khazova teaches: wherein the light-ray modulating element comprises a holographic interference element of at least one wavelength, wherein when the light- ray modulating element comprises holographic interference elements of multiple wavelengths, the light-ray modulating element comprises a red-light-wavelength holographic interference element, a green-light-wavelength holographic interference element and a blue-light-wavelength holographic interference element that are arranged in layer configuration (LCD [liquid crystal display] 4 functions in cooperation with an attached holographic optical element [HOE] 6 which may have an RGB [red, green, blue] design; paragraphs [0049], [0056] and FIGS. 1, 2 of Khazova).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the RGB HOE of Khazova in conjunction with the liquid crystal panel of Itoh because such design avoids effects on backlight illumination and light blocking or parallax restriction parts, so that display brightness is not compromised, and substantially relaxes tolerances for alignment, as the HOE need not be accurately registered with the pixel structure of the LCD, as taught in paragraphs [0053], [0056] of Khazova.
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itoh in view of Pacher et al., US 2015/0009561 A1.
Regarding Claim 12, Itoh discloses the limitations of Claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly disclose the use of the device in eyeglasses, such that: An eyeglass, wherein the eyeglass comprises the light-ray modulating element according to claim 1.
Pacher is related to Itoh with respect to lenticular lens display device.
Pacher teaches: An eyeglass, wherein the eyeglass comprises the light-ray modulating element according to claim 1 (vision aid configured as spectacles 530; paragraph [0066] and FIG. 7 of Pacher).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the spectacles [eyeglass] type configuration of Pacher for the assembly of Itoh because such configuration enables the user to observe a dome-shaped display area under a very wide image field angle, as taught in paragraphs [0018], [0073] of Pacher.
Regarding Claim 13, Itoh-Pacher discloses the limitations of Claim 12 and further discloses: wherein the eyeglass further comprises a photographing unit, and the photographing unit is configured for, when the light-ray modulating element is at an initial position, while the photographing unit is moving in a first direction, photographing an image formed by the first viewpoints, and when the image changes, recording a movement distance, and transmitting the movement distance to the 3D displaying device (stereo camera 9 detects an observer who observes the liquid crystal panel 8, whereby a controller 10 recognizes the relative positional relationship between the pupils of the observer and the display device 1 based on the observer detected in the image captured by the stereo camera 9, such that it may estimate the positions of pupils of the left and right eyes based on the detected form of the head to control the deflecting amount of the deflecting unit 7, so that the laser light transmitted through the liquid crystal panel 8 enters only the pupil of the eye of the observer; paragraphs [0031]-[0034] and FIGS. 1, 2 of Itoh).
Regarding Claim 14, Itoh-Pacher discloses the limitations of Claim 13 and further discloses: wherein the eyeglass comprises an eyeglass frame, the light-ray modulating element is disposed inside a space defined by the eyeglass frame, and the photographing unit is fixed to the eyeglass frame (when used as the spectacles 530 of Pacher, the assembly of Itoh would include such items as deflection unit 7 and stereo camera 9 within the frame of the spectacles 530; see FIGS. 1, 2 of Itoh and FIG. 7 of Pacher).
Regarding Claim 15, Itoh-Pacher discloses the limitations of Claim 12 and further discloses: A 3D displaying system, wherein the 3D displaying system comprises the eyeglass according to claim 12 (three-dimensional image formation; paragraph [0068] of Pacher).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6 and 16-20 are objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
With respect to Claim 2, although the prior art discloses various light-ray modulating elements, including:
PNG
media_image1.png
276
594
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The prior art does not appear to disclose or suggest the above combination of features further comprising:
PNG
media_image2.png
126
592
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to Claim 16, although the prior art discloses various light-ray modulating elements, including:
PNG
media_image3.png
100
592
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
174
592
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
64
594
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
64
596
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The prior art does not appear to disclose or suggest the above combination of features further comprising:
PNG
media_image7.png
346
596
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
51
598
media_image8.png
Greyscale
With respect to Claims 3-6 and 17-20, these claims each depend from either Claim 2 or Claim 16, and are therefore allowable for at least the reasons stated above.
Examiner Note – Consider Entirety of References
Although various text and figures of the cited references have been specifically cited in this Office Action to show disclosures and teachings which correspond to specific claim language, Applicant is advised to consider the complete disclosure of each reference, including portions which have not been specifically cited by the Examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN S DUNNING whose telephone number is 571-272-4879. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 10:30AM to 7:00PM Eastern Time Zone. 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, BUMSUK WON can be reached at 571-272-2713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RYAN S DUNNING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872