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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claims 1 and 5 recitations of “whereby a gradation display image is displayed” are unclear as to exactly where this gradation display image is displayed. For example, is the gradation display image displayed within one of the pixels or its component elements? Alternatively, is the gradation display image formed by the overall plurality of pixels collectively? Exactly what structure/configuration is sought? Please review/revise/clarify.
The claim 5 recitations of “a first portion in which the first colored line is not provided”, “a second portion in which the second colored line is not provided” and “a third portion in which the third colored line is not provided” conflicts with the earlier recitations of “the first colored line extending in the second direction over an entire width of the first region”, “the second colored line extending in the second direction over an entire width of the second region” and “the third colored line extending in the second directly over an entire width of the third region”. Exactly what structure/configuration is sought? Please review/revise/clarify.
The claim 5 recitation of “a fifth colored line” is unclear, as no “fourth” colored line is established beforehand. Exactly what structure/configuration is sought? Please review/revise/clarify.
The claim 8 recitation of “the fifth colored line is provided in a portion of the first to third portions in which the fifth colored line is not provided” is unclear. Exactly what structure/configuration is sought? Please review/revise/clarify.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for multiple limitations in the claims, including: i) claims 2, 4, 10, 13 and 15 recite the limitation “the range”; ii) claim 9 recites the limitation "the dimension of the fifth colored line"; iii) claims 11-12 recite the limitation “the same order”, “the plurality of pixels adjacent in the first direction” and “the plurality of pixels adjacent in the second direction”; and iv) claim 20 recites the limitation “the vapor deposition layer that partially covers the relief type diffraction grating” (note that claim 19 merely calls for “a vapor deposition layer provided on at least part of a relief type diffraction grating”- not particularly “covering” it, and as such could be provided either above or below the diffraction grating).
Claims 3, 6-7, 14 and 16-19 are rejected as depending from rejected independent claims 1 and 5.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0193457 to Lister (“Lister”).
Regarding claim 1, Lister discloses a display (e.g. lenticular device 10, as shown in fig. 1a and discussed at para. 84-85), comprising: i) a substrate (e.g. polymer substrate discussed at para. 69); and ii) a plurality (figs. 4a and c) of pixels (e.g. image pixels 21 and overlying mask pixels 31, together, as shown in figs. 4a and c, and discussed at para. 93-94 and 96; compare to the arrangement shown in Applicant’s fig. 1) arranged on (para. 93-94 and 96) the substrate (aforementioned polymer substrate), iii) the plurality of pixels (21 and 31, together) being arranged in (figs. 4a, 4c and 8; compare fig. 8 to the arrangement shown in Applicant’s fig. 2) first and second directions (e.g. horizontal and vertical directions, respectively, as shown in figs. 4a, 4c and 8) perpendicular to each other (note that “horizontal” and “vertical” directions are perpendicular), each of the plurality of pixels (21 and 31, together) having a dimension of 440 micrometers or less (para. 29) in each of the first and second directions (aforementioned horizontal and vertical directions), iv) each of the plurality of pixels (21 and 31, together) including linear shaped (fig. 8) first to third regions (e.g. strips of colors C1-3, as shown in fig. 8 and discussed at para. 103), the first to third regions (aforementioned strips of colors C1-3) respectively extending (fig. 8) in the second direction (aforementioned vertical direction) and being arranged in (fig. 8) the first direction (aforementioned horizontal direction), v) the first region (aforementioned strip of color C1) including a first colored line (e.g. a red line, as shown in fig. 8) in at least some of the plurality of pixels (21 and 31, together), the first colored line (aforementioned red line) extending (fig. 8) in the second direction (aforementioned vertical direction) over an entire width (fig. 8) of the first region (aforementioned strip of color C1), vi) the second region (aforementioned strip of color C2) including a second colored line (e.g. a green line, as shown in fig. 8) that exhibits a color (e.g. green) different from (note that green and red are different colors) a color (e.g. red) of the first colored line (aforementioned red line) in at least some of the plurality of pixels (21 and 31, together), the second colored line (aforementioned green line) extending (fig. 8) in the second direction (aforementioned vertical direction) over an entire width (fig. 8) of the second region (aforementioned strip of color C2), vii) the third region (aforementioned strip of color C3) including a third colored line (e.g. a blue line, as shown in fig. 8) that exhibits a color (e.g. blue) different from (note that blue, red and green are different colors) colors (red and green, respectively) of the first and second colored lines (aforementioned red and green lines, respectively) in at least some of the plurality of pixels (21 and 31, together), the third colored line (aforementioned blue line) extending in (fig. 8) the second direction (aforementioned vertical direction) over an entire width (fig. 8) of the third region (aforementioned strip of color C3).
Lister does not disclose wherein viii) each of the plurality of pixels (21 and 31, together) differs from one or more other of the plurality of pixels (21 and 31, together) in one or more of dimensions of the first to third colored lines (aforementioned red, green and blue lines, respectively) in the second direction (aforementioned vertical direction), whereby a gradation display image is displayed.
However, such a configuration would be an obvious matter of design choice.
Additionally, it has been held that “where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.” See In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385-86, 217 USPQ 401,404 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Given that the respective colorings assigned to portions of each of the micro-sized pixels represented by the element 21/31 pairings will simply contribute to the overall appearance of color in an image produced when a large array of said micro-sized pixels is observed (as suggested within para. 101 of Applicant’s filed specification), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the Lister substrate with visible red, green or blue colored strips of assigned dimensions as desired within the pixels, in order to yield a resultant gradation aesthetic appearance/image as desired when ultimately viewed by an end-user.
Regarding claim 2, Lister discloses the display of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein an absolute value of a difference between an arithmetic mean WAV1 of a width W1 of the first region (aforementioned strip of color C1), a width W2 of the second region (aforementioned strip of color C2) and a width W3 of the third region (aforementioned strip of color C3) and the width W1, an absolute value of a difference between the arithmetic mean WAV1 and the width W2, and an absolute value of a difference between the arithmetic mean WAV1 and the width W3 are such that ratios of each of the absolute values to the arithmetic mean WAV1 are each in the range of 0% to 20%.
However, such a configuration would be an obvious matter of design choice.
Additionally, it has been held that “where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.” See In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385-86, 217 USPQ 401,404 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
For the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1, supra, it would have been obvious to provide the Lister substrate with visible red, green or blue colored strips of assigned dimensions as desired within the pixels.
Regarding claim 3, Lister discloses the display of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein each of the plurality of pixels (21 and 31, together) further includes a linear shaped fourth region, the fourth region extending in the second direction (aforementioned vertical direction) and being arranged parallel to the first to third regions (aforementioned strips of colors C1-3) in the first direction (aforementioned horizontal direction), the fourth region including a fourth colored line that exhibits a color different from colors (aforementioned red, green and blue, respectively) of the first to third colored lines (aforementioned red, green and blue lines, respectively) in at least some of the plurality of pixels (21 and 31, together), the fourth colored line extending in the second direction (aforementioned vertical direction) over an entire width of the fourth region.
However, it has been held that a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). In the instant matter, providing additional instances of regions would simply affect the aesthetic presentation of information as desired.
Additionally, such a configuration would be an obvious matter of design choice.
Further, it has been held that “where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.” See In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385-86, 217 USPQ 401,404 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
For the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1, supra, it would have been obvious to provide the Lister substrate with an additional strip of color C4 along with the initial strips, said strips each having assigned dimensions and colorings as desired within the pixels.
Regarding claim 4, Lister discloses the display of claim 3, but does not disclose wherein an absolute value of a difference between an arithmetic mean WAV2 of a width W1 of the first region (aforementioned strip of color C1), a width W2 of the second region (aforementioned strip of color C2), a width W3 of the third region (aforementioned strip of color C3) and a width W4 of the fourth region (aforementioned strip of color C4) and the width W1, an absolute value of a difference between the arithmetic mean WAV2 and the width W2, an absolute value of a difference between the arithmetic mean WAV2 and the width W3, and an absolute value of a difference between the arithmetic mean WAV2 and the width W4 are such that ratios of each of the absolute values to the arithmetic mean WAV2 are each in the range of 0% to 20%.
However, such a configuration would be an obvious matter of design choice.
Additionally, it has been held that “where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.” See In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385-86, 217 USPQ 401,404 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
For the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1, supra, it would have been obvious to provide the Lister substrate with visible colored strips of assigned dimensions as desired within the pixels.
Regarding claim 5, Lister discloses a display (e.g. lenticular device 10, as shown in fig. 1a and discussed at para. 84-85) comprising: i) a substrate (e.g. polymer substrate discussed at para. 69); and ii) a plurality (figs. 4a and c) of pixels (e.g. image pixels 21 and overlying mask pixels 31, together, as shown in figs. 4a and c, and discussed at para. 93-94 and 96; compare to the arrangement shown in Applicant’s fig. 1) arranged on (para. 93-94 and 96) the substrate (aforementioned polymer substrate), iii) the plurality of pixels (21 and 31, together) being arranged in (figs. 4a, 4c and 8; compare fig. 8 to the arrangement shown in Applicant’s fig. 2) first and second directions (e.g. horizontal and vertical directions, respectively, as shown in figs. 4a, 4c and 8) perpendicular to each other (note that “horizontal” and “vertical” directions are perpendicular), each of the plurality of pixels (21 and 31, together) having a dimension of 440 micrometers or less (para. 29) in each of the first and second directions (aforementioned horizontal and vertical directions), iv) each of the plurality of pixels (21 and 31, together) including linear shaped (fig. 8) first to third regions (e.g. strips of colors C1-3, as shown in fig. 8 and discussed at para. 103), the first to third regions (aforementioned strips of colors C1-3) respectively extending (fig. 8) in the second direction (aforementioned vertical direction) and being arranged in (fig. 8) the first direction (aforementioned horizontal direction), v) the first region (aforementioned strip of color C1) including a first colored line (e.g. a red line, as shown in fig. 8) in at least some of the plurality of pixels (21 and 31, together), the first colored line (aforementioned red line) extending (fig. 8) in the second direction (aforementioned vertical direction) over an entire width (fig. 8) of the first region (aforementioned strip of color C1), vi) the second region (aforementioned strip of color C2) including a second colored line (e.g. a green line, as shown in fig. 8) that exhibits a color (e.g. green) different from (note that green and red are different colors) a color (e.g. red) of the first colored line (aforementioned red line) in at least some of the plurality of pixels (21 and 31, together), the second colored line (aforementioned green line) extending (fig. 8) in the second direction (aforementioned vertical direction) over an entire width (fig. 8) of the second region (aforementioned strip of color C2), vii) the third region (aforementioned strip of color C3) including a third colored line (e.g. a blue line, as shown in fig. 8) that exhibits a color (e.g. blue) different from (note that blue, red and green are different colors) colors (red and green, respectively) of the first and second colored lines (aforementioned red and green lines, respectively) in at least some of the plurality of pixels (21 and 31, together), the third colored line (aforementioned blue line) extending in (fig. 8) the second direction (aforementioned vertical direction) over an entire width (fig. 8) of the third region (aforementioned strip of color C3).
Lister does not disclose viii) the first region (aforementioned strip of color C1) including a first portion in which the first colored line (aforementioned red line) is not provided or the second region (aforementioned strip of color C2) including a second portion in which the second colored line (aforementioned green line) is not provided or the third region (aforementioned strip of color C3) including a third portion in which the third colored line (aforementioned blue line) is not provided in at least some of the plurality of pixels (21 and 31, together), one or more of the first to third portions including a fifth colored line that exhibits a color different from colors of the first to third colored lines (aforementioned red, green and blue lines, respectively), the fifth colored line extending in the second direction (aforementioned vertical direction), wherein ix) each of the plurality of pixels (21 and 31, together) differs from one or more other of the plurality of pixels (21 and 31, together) in one or more of dimensions of the first to third colored lines (aforementioned red, green and blue lines, respectively) in the second direction (aforementioned vertical direction), and differs from one or more other of the plurality of pixels (21 and 31, together) in a total area of the fifth colored lines, whereby a gradation display image is displayed.
However, it has been held that a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). In the instant matter, providing additional instances of colored lines would simply affect the aesthetic presentation of information as desired.
Additionally, such a configuration would be an obvious matter of design choice.
Further, it has been held that “where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.” See In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385-86, 217 USPQ 401,404 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Given that the respective colorings assigned to portions of each of the micro-sized pixels represented by element 21/31 pairings will contribute to the overall appearance of an image produced when a large array of said micro-sized pixels is observed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the Lister substrate with visible colored strips of assigned dimensions as desired, including a fifth line of color within the pixels, in order to yield a resultant gradation aesthetic appearance/image as desired when ultimately viewed by an end-user.
Regarding claim 6, Lister discloses the display of claim 5, but does not disclose wherein the fifth colored line (aforementioned fifth line of color) is provided over an entire length of each of the first to third portions.
However, such a configuration would be an obvious matter of design choice.
Additionally, it has been held that “where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.” See In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385-86, 217 USPQ 401,404 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
For the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 5, supra, it would have been obvious to provide the Lister substrate with visible colored strips of assigned dimensions as desired within the pixels.
Regarding claim 7, Lister discloses the display of claim 5, but does not disclose wherein in at least some of the plurality of pixels (21 and 31, together), the fifth colored line (aforementioned fifth line of color) is provided only in part of the first to third portions.
However, such a configuration would be an obvious matter of design choice.
Additionally, it has been held that “where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.” See In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385-86, 217 USPQ 401,404 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
For the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 5, supra, it would have been obvious to provide the Lister substrate with visible colored strips of assigned dimensions as desired within the pixels.
Regarding claim 8, Lister discloses the display of claim 5, but does not disclose wherein i) in at least some of the plurality of pixels (21 and 31, together), the fifth colored line (aforementioned fifth line of color) is provided only in part of the first to third portions, and ii) a sixth colored line that exhibits a color different from colors of the first to third colored lines (aforementioned red, green and blue lines, respectively) and the fifth colored line (aforementioned fifth line of color) is provided in a portion of the first to third portions in which the fifth colored line (aforementioned fifth line of color) is not provided, the sixth colored line extending in the second direction (aforementioned vertical direction).
However, it has been held that a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). In the instant matter, providing additional instances of colored lines would simply affect the aesthetic presentation of information as desired.
Additionally, such a configuration would be an obvious matter of design choice.
Further, it has been held that “where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.” See In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385-86, 217 USPQ 401,404 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
For the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 5, supra, it would have been obvious to provide the Lister substrate with visible colored strips of assigned dimensions as desired, including a sixth line of color within the pixels.
Regarding claim 9, Lister discloses the display of claim 8, but does not disclose wherein in each of the pixels (21 and 31, together) including the sixth colored line (aforementioned sixth line of color), a sum of the dimension of the first colored line (aforementioned red line) in the second direction (aforementioned vertical direction) and the dimension of the fifth colored line (aforementioned fifth line of color) provided in the first portion in the second direction (aforementioned vertical direction), a sum of the dimension of the second colored line (aforementioned green line) in the second direction (aforementioned vertical direction) and the dimension of the fifth colored line (aforementioned fifth line of color) provided in the second portion in the second direction (aforementioned vertical direction), and a sum of the dimension of the third colored line (aforementioned blue line) in the second direction (aforementioned vertical direction) and the dimension of the fifth colored line (aforementioned fifth line of color) provided in the third portion in the second direction (aforementioned vertical direction) are the same.
However, such a configuration would be an obvious matter of design choice.
Additionally, it has been held that “where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.” See In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385-86, 217 USPQ 401,404 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
For the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 5, supra, it would have been obvious to provide the Lister substrate with visible colored strips of assigned dimensions as desired within the pixels.
Regarding claim 10, Lister discloses the display of claim 5, but does not disclose wherein i) an absolute value of a difference between an arithmetic mean WAV1of a width W1 of the first region (aforementioned strip of color C1), a width W2 of the second region (aforementioned strip of color C2) and a width W3 of the third region (aforementioned strip of color C3) and the width W1, an absolute value of a difference between the arithmetic mean WAV1 and the width W2, and an absolute value of a difference between the arithmetic mean WAV1 and the width W3 are such that ratios of each of the absolute values to the arithmetic mean WAV1 are each in the range of 0% to 20%, and ii) a difference between the arithmetic mean WAV1 and a width W5A of the fifth colored line (aforementioned fifth line of color) located in the first region of the fifth colored line (aforementioned fifth line of color), a difference between the arithmetic mean WAV1 and a width W5B of the fifth colored line (aforementioned fifth line of color) located in the second region of the fifth colored line, and a difference between the arithmetic mean WAV1 and a width W5C of the fifth colored line (aforementioned fifth line of color) located in the third region of the fifth colored line are such that ratios of each of the differences to the arithmetic mean WAV1 are each in the range of -20% to 34%.
However, such a configuration would be an obvious matter of design choice.
Additionally, it has been held that “where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.” See In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385-86, 217 USPQ 401,404 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
For the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 5, supra, it would have been obvious to provide the Lister substrate with visible colored strips of assigned dimensions as desired within the pixels.
Regarding claim 11, Lister discloses the display of claim 1, wherein the first to third regions (aforementioned strips of colors C1-3) are arranged in the same order (fig. 8) in the plurality of pixels (21 and 31, together) adjacent in the first direction (aforementioned horizontal direction), but does not disclose the first to third regions (aforementioned strips of colors C1-3) being arranged in the same order in the plurality of pixels (21 and 31, together) adjacent in the second direction (aforementioned horizontal direction).
However, such a configuration would be an obvious matter of design choice.
Additionally, it has been held that “where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.” See In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385-86, 217 USPQ 401,404 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
For the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 5, supra, it would have been obvious to provide the Lister substrate with visible colored strips of assigned dimensions as desired within the pixels.
Regarding claim 12, Lister discloses the display of claim 1, wherein the first to third regions (aforementioned strips of colors C1-3) are arranged in the same order (fig. 8) in the plurality of pixels (21 and 31, together) adjacent in the first direction (aforementioned horizontal direction), but does not disclose the first to third regions (aforementioned strips of colors C1-3) being arranged in different orders from each other in the plurality of pixels (21 and 31, together) adjacent in the second direction (aforementioned horizontal direction).
However, such a configuration would be an obvious matter of design choice.
Additionally, it has been held that “where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.” See In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385-86, 217 USPQ 401,404 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
For the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 5, supra, it would have been obvious to provide the Lister substrate with visible colored strips of assigned dimensions as desired within the pixels.
Regarding claim 13, Lister discloses the display of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein each of the colored lines (aforementioned red, green and blue lines, and aforementioned fifth and sixth lines of color) has a width in the range of 2.0 micrometers to 100.0 micrometers.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In the instant matter, the particular chosen measurements of the respective lines of color will simply determine the ultimate aesthetic effect presented by the overall assembly.
Additionally, such a configuration would be an obvious matter of design choice.
Further, it has been held that “where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.” See In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385-86, 217 USPQ 401,404 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
For the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1, supra, it would have been obvious to provide the Lister substrate with visible colored strips of assigned dimensions as desired within the pixels.
Regarding claim 14, Lister discloses the display of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein among contours of the colored lines (aforementioned red, green and blue lines, and aforementioned fifth and sixth lines of color) in a cross section perpendicular to the second direction (aforementioned vertical direction), a portion corresponding to a top of each of the colored lines (aforementioned red, green and blue lines, and aforementioned fifth and sixth lines of color) has a convex curved shape.
However, such a configuration would be an obvious matter of design choice.
Additionally, it has been held that “where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.” See In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385-86, 217 USPQ 401,404 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
For the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1, supra, it would have been obvious to provide the Lister substrate with visible colored strips of assigned dimensions as desired within the pixels.
Regarding claim 15, Lister discloses the display of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein each of the colored lines (aforementioned red, green and blue lines, and aforementioned fifth and sixth lines of color) has a height in the range of 0.2 micrometers to 12.0 micrometers.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In the instant matter, the particular chosen measurements of the respective lines of color will simply determine the ultimate aesthetic effect presented by the overall assembly.
Additionally, such a configuration would be an obvious matter of design choice.
Further, it has been held that “where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.” See In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385-86, 217 USPQ 401,404 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
For the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1, supra, it would have been obvious to provide the Lister substrate with visible colored strips of assigned dimensions as desired within the pixels.
Regarding claim 16, Lister discloses the display of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein each of the colored lines (aforementioned red, green and blue lines, and aforementioned fifth and sixth lines of color) has a root mean square roughness Rq of 0.420 micrometers or less.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In the instant matter, the particular chosen measurements of the respective lines of color will simply determine the ultimate aesthetic effect presented by the overall assembly.
Additionally, such a configuration would be an obvious matter of design choice.
Further, it has been held that “where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.” See In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385-86, 217 USPQ 401,404 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
For the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1, supra, it would have been obvious to provide the Lister substrate with visible colored strips of assigned dimensions (including roughness of border/edge shapings) as desired within the pixels.
Regarding claim 17, Lister discloses the display of claim 1, wherein the colored lines (aforementioned red, green and blue lines, and aforementioned fifth and sixth lines of color) are printed lines (para. 25, 37, 106 and 110; note that the instant claim is drawn to a display- not a method of forming such).
Regarding claim 18, Lister discloses the display of claim 1, wherein the colored lines (aforementioned red, green and blue lines, and aforementioned fifth and sixth lines of color) are formed by gravure offset printing (para. 25, 37, 106 and 110; note that the instant claim is drawn to a display- not a method of forming such).
Regarding claim 19, Lister discloses the display of claim 1, wherein the colored lines (aforementioned red, green and blue lines, and aforementioned fifth and sixth lines of color) include a vapor deposition layer (para. 38 and 109) provided on at least part of a relief type (fig. 1a) diffraction grating (per para. 5 and 135, diffraction effects may be utilized as desired).
Regarding claim 20, Lister discloses the display of claim 19, wherein the plurality of pixels (21 and 31, together) include a relief structure (fig. 1a) forming layer (e.g. cylindrical lenses 19, as shown in fig. 1a) on which the relief type (fig. 1a) diffraction grating (per para. 5 and 135, diffraction effects may be utilized as desired) is formed (fig. 1a), the relief structure forming layer (19) being provided on one surface (fig. 1a), and the vapor deposition layer that partially covers (fig. 1a) the relief type (fig. 1a) diffraction grating (per para. 5 and 135, diffraction effects may be utilized as desired).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN V LEWIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5052. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM-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, Daniel J. Troy can be reached at (571) 270-3742. 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.
/JUSTIN V LEWIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights