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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/09/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
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 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 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 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 1-7 and 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NAGATOMI et al. (US PUB 2022/0004013; herein after “Nagatomi” in related Embodiments) in view of Kang (US PUB 20130278595).
Nagatomi and Kang disclose displaying techniques, and in particular to a three-dimensional display device and display control method thereof.
Therefore, they are analogous art.
Regarding claim 1, Nagatomi teaches a display device (a display system 2A, see FIG. 5, para. [0155]) comprising: a display (12) that emits image light (i.e., the light emitted through the display surface of the display element, see para. [0055], also see para. [0157]); an optical element (28A) that is disposed away from the display (e.g., the first mirror and the optical element are each provided separately from the display element, and the optical element, para. [0009], and as shown at least in FIG. 5, para. [0156]), the optical element being switchable between a first state (e.g., reflects) in which the optical element reflects the image light and a second state (e.g., transmits) in which the optical element (a liquid-crystal optical element, e.g., 28A) transmits the image light (see para. [0074], also see para. [0162] and [0164], FIG. 6); a first reflector (e.g., concave mirror 26 (an example of a first mirror) with reflection surface 44) that is disposed on an opposite side of the optical element relative to a side on which the display is disposed (as shown at least in FIG. 5, see para. [0162], also see para. [0050]), the controller switches the optical element between the first state and the second state in synchronization with the first image and the second image (i.e., include a liquid-crystal optical element (e.g., 28A/60) for switching between a transmission mode for transmitting incident light and a reflection mode for reflecting incident light, see para. [0074]).
Nagatomi fails to teach a controller that controls the display and the optical element, and wherein, when causing the display to repeatedly output a first image and a second image in an alternating manner.
Further, Nagatomi fails explicit teaching of the controller switches the optical element between the first state and the second state in synchronization with the first image and the second image
However, in a related field of endeavor Kang teaches a display control method of three-dimensional display device, which comprises: controlling the liquid crystal display panel to display left-eye image frame and right-eye image frame alternatingly, the liquid crystal display panel being divided into a plurality of display areas distributed continuously, see para. [0018].
Liquid crystal display panel 21 is for displaying left-eye image frame and right-eye image frame alternatingly, wherein liquid crystal display panel 21 is divided into a plurality of display areas distributed continuously and sequentially, see para, [0032], FIGS. 3-4.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Nagatomi such that controlling the liquid crystal display panel to display left-eye image frame and right-eye image frame alternatingly, and liquid crystal display panel 21 is divided into a plurality of display areas distributed continuously and sequentially as taught by Kang, for the purpose of reduction of residual image and improving the three-dimensional display effect and viewing experience. In addition, through controlling the drive currents of a plurality of backlight units, the luminance uniformity of the liquid crystal panel is improved.
Regarding claim 2, Nagatomi according to claim 1 further teaches the optical element includes a liquid crystal layer (liquid crystal 62, FIG. 6), and a first polarizing plate (52) and a second polarizing plate (50) that sandwich the liquid crystal layer (as shown in FIG. 6, para. [0160]), the first polarizing plate is a transmissive polarizing plate (a transmissive polarizing plate 52) where the image light enters, and the second polarizing plate is a reflective polarizing plate (a reflective polarizing plate 50) (see para. [0161] - [0162], FIG. 6)
Regarding claim 3, Nagatomi according to claim 1 further teaches a half mirror that is disposed between the display and the optical element (i.e., liquid crystal mirror 60 as a half mirror used as an optical element like 28A, as shown in FIGS. 5-6, para. [0160] and [0166]).
Regarding claim 4, Nagatomi according to claim 1 further teaches a second reflector that is disposed on an optical path of the image light emitted from the display (e.g., a plane mirror 64 (an example of a second mirror), as shown in FIG. 7 of the related Embodiment 3, para. [0168], also see para. [0054]).
Regarding claim 5, Nagatomi according to claim 1 further teaches the first reflector includes a first region and a second region (see para. [0105]), the first region being positioned opposite to the optical element, the second region being positioned not directly opposite to the optical element (i.e., curved reflector mirror 26, as shown in FIG. 5).
Regarding claim 6, Nagatomi fails to teach when the controller detects an abnormality in the optical element, the controller causes the display to output a third image corresponding to the abnormality.
However, in a related field of endeavor Kang teaches disposing a plurality of backlight units, each of backlight units corresponding to each of display areas, controlling the plurality of backlight units to activate simultaneously when the lowermost display area receiving drive signal of an image frame and when the liquid crystal in the lowermost display area completely responded, and each of backlight units being closed when corresponding display area starting to receive another image, para. [0018].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Nagatomi such that a plurality of backlight units, each of backlight units corresponding to each of display areas, corresponding display area starting to receive another image including a third image as taught by Kang, for the purpose of controlling the drive currents of a plurality of backlight units, the luminance uniformity of the liquid crystal panel is improved.
Regarding claim 7, Nagatomi fails to teach the first image is identical to the second image, and when the controller causes the display to repeatedly output the first image and the second image in an alternating manner, the controller switches the optical element between the first state and the second state every predetermined period that allows the switching to be visually recognized.
However, in a related field of endeavor Kang teaches as shown in FIG. 4, liquid crystal panel 21 of the present embodiment displays left-eye image frame and right-eye image frame alternatingly, wherein the time of left-eye image frame is T1, and the time of right-eye image frame is T2, T1 and T2 represent the time of an image frame, para. [0039].
During time T1 of left-eye image frame, uppermost display area S11 is the first to be driven, followed by display areas S12, S13, S14 and finally lowermost display area S15. After display area S15 receives the drive signal of left-eye image frame and after the liquid crystal of display area S15 has completely responded, backlight units S1, S2, S3, S4 and S5 are activated simultaneously. Each of backlight units S1, S2, S3, S4 and S5 is closed when corresponding display starts to receive the drive signal of the right-eye image frame, wherein the response time of liquid crystal is L, para. [0040].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Nagatomi such that liquid crystal panel displays left-eye image frame and right-eye image frame alternatingly, wherein the time of left-eye image frame is T1, and the time of right-eye image frame is T2, T1 and T2 represent the time of an image frame (e.g., visual switching of the first and second state in every predetermined period) as taught by Kang, for the purpose of reduction of residual image and improving the three-dimensional display effect and viewing experience. In addition, through controlling the drive currents of a plurality of backlight units, the luminance uniformity of the liquid crystal panel is improved.
Regarding claim 9, Nagatomi according to claim 1 further teaches the first reflector (curved mirror 122) includes a first reflective region (144) and a second reflective region (146) (as shown in FIG. 24, para. [0296] according to the related Embodiment 9, also see para. [0106]) that are positioned at different distances from the optical element (i.e., curved reflector mirror 26, as shown in FIG. 5).
Regarding claim 10, Nagatomi according to claim 9 further teaches the first reflective region (144) is positioned farther from the optical element than the second reflective region (146) is (as shown in FIG. 24), and the optical element includes a portion that is kept only in the second state (i.e., a configuration may be adopted in which optical element 28A includes transmissive polarizing (e.g., only in the second state) plate 52 (see FIG. 2) instead of reflective polarizing plate 50, para. [0156]), the portion corresponding to the first reflective region (i.e., a portion of light emitted through the display surface of the display element and reflected only once by the first mirror passes through the optical element and travels toward the display surface of the display element, see para. [0115]).
Regarding claim 11, Nagatomi according to claim 9 further teaches the first reflective region (144) is positioned farther from the optical element (118) than the second reflective region (146) is (as shown in FIG. 24), and the optical element exposes the first reflective region (as shown in FIG. 24).
Nagatomi in view of Kang discloses the claimed limitation except for explicitly teaching the optical element exposes the first reflective region. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the optical element that exposes the first reflective region, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 12, Nagatomi according to claim 11 further teaches the first reflective region is a concave mirror (e.g., a curved mirror 122, FIG. 24).
Regarding claim 13, Nagatomi teaches a display system (e.g., a vehicle provided with a display system, as shown in FIG. 1) comprising: the display device (2) according to claim 1 (as set forth in claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 14, Nagatomi according to claim 13 further teaches a user detector (e.g., a camera) that detects a user (a driver 10) who views an image that is based on the image light (i.e., Driver 10 sees virtual image 56 of a rear-view image, para. [0144] … display system 2 displaying a rear-view image (an example of an image) captured by the camera, para. [0121] and [0122], FIG. 1), wherein the controller adjusts at least one of a position of the first image or a position of the second image based on a result of detection performed by the user detector (i.e., The viewing distance from eye 32 of driver 10 to the display position of virtual image 56 of a rear-view image (see FIG. 1), para. [0181]).
Regarding claim 15, Nagatomi according to claim 13 further teaches a user detector that detects a user who views an image that is based on the image light (i.e., Driver 10 sees virtual image 56 of a rear-view image, para. [0144] … display system 2 displaying a rear-view image (an example of an image) captured by the camera, para. [0121] and [0122], FIG. 1), wherein the controller adjusts at least one of a shape of the first image or a shape of the second image based on a result of detection performed by the user detector (i.e., the shape of a rear-view image reflected by reflection surface 138 of mirror 122S can be made to appear closer to a rectangle to driver 10, para. [0356], FIG. 36 according to the related Embodiment 16).
Regarding claim 16, Nagatomi according to claim 13 further teaches a user detector (e.g., a camera) that detects a user (a driver 10) who views an image that is based on the image light (i.e., Driver 10 sees virtual image 56 of a rear-view image, para. [0144] … display system 2 displaying a rear-view image (an example of an image) captured by the camera, para. [0121] and [0122], FIG. 1), wherein the controller adjusts a first one of a magnification of the first image or a magnification of the second image relative to a second one of the magnification of the first image or the magnification of the second image, based on a result of detection performed by the user detector (i.e., the length of an optical path along which light emitted through the display surface of the display element travels until the light is reflected by the first mirror can be ensured, and thus the viewing distance from the eye(s) of the user (driver) up to the display position of a virtual image of an image can be extended (e.g., magnification), para. [0055]).
Nagatomi in view of Kang discloses the claimed invention except for explicit teaching of a controller adjusts a first one of a magnification of the first image or the second image relative to a second one of the magnification of the first image or the magnification of the second image.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a controller adjusts a magnification of a first image or a second image, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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:
Regarding claim 8, the prior art does not teach, or renders obvious, regarding when the first image is defined by the image light displayed when the optical element is in the first state and the second image is defined by the image light displayed when the optical element is in the second state, the controller: (i) causes the display to output the first image to gradually reduce a size of the first image from an initial size to a first predetermined size, while keeping the optical element in the first state, the first predetermined size being smaller than the initial size; (ii) switches the optical element to the second state after the size of the first image reaches the first predetermined size; (iii) causes the display to output the second image to gradually reduce a size of the second image from a second predetermined size to a third predetermined size, while keeping the optical element in the second state, the second predetermined size being smaller than the first predetermined size, the third predetermined size being smaller than the second predetermined size; (iv) causes the display to output the second image to gradually increase the size of the second image to the second predetermined size, when the size of the second image reaches the third predetermined size; (v) switches the optical element to the first state after size the of the second image reaches the second predetermined size; and (vi) causes the display to output the first image to gradually increase the size of the first image from the first predetermined size to the initial size, while keeping the optical element in the first state.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. SULYOK et al. (US PUB 2023/0004001) teaches “a linear polarizer arranged after the image display device is followed by a polarizing element according to the invention, indicating the optical axes of the birefringent layers arranged on the reflecting element and on the polarizing element, respectively,” paragraph 0052, FIG. 19b.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUSTAK CHOUDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-5247. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM-5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ricky Mack can be reached on (571)272-2333. 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.
/MUSTAK CHOUDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
February 19, 2026