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 .
Double Patenting
Claims 1-11, 20 of this application is patentably indistinct from claim s 1-11 of Application No. 18/643,505. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Choi et al (US Patent No.: US 11,526,005 B2, “Choi”).
Regarding Claim 1, Choi discloses a surface-divided polarization conversion component (Figure 8, surface-divided polarization conversion component 14/12; Col. 18, l.43-53 discloses light that is linearly polarized in a first direction and a part of that linearly-polarized light that is emitted in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction by half wavelength) comprising, in a plan view:
A first transmissive part which transmits polarized light for a first image (Figure 8, first transmissive part a portion of 14 not overlapping with 12; Col. 18, l.43-53); and
A second transmissive part which transmits polarized light for a second image (Figure 8, second transmissive part 12/14),
The second transmissive part introducing a phase difference different by λ/2 from a phase difference introduced by the first transmissive part (Figure 8, surface-divided polarization conversion component 14/12; Col. 18, l.43-53 discloses light that is linearly polarized in a first direction and a part of that linearly-polarized light that is emitted in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction by half wavelength).
Regarding Claim 2, Choi discloses the surface-divided polarization conversion component according to claim 1, wherein the first transmissive part is a non-conversion part which transmits polarized light for a first image without converting a polarization state of the polarized light (Figure 8 discloses a non-conversion part for the first transmissive part, which only consists of the linearly polarized light via element 14), and the second transmissive part is a conversion part which converts a polarization state of polarized light for a second image by introducing a phase difference of λ/2 to the polarized light for a second image (Figure 8 discloses a conversion part 12 which introduces a phase difference of λ/2 for the second transmissive part).
Regarding Claim 5, Choi discloses a display device (Figure 8) comprising:
A display panel configured to emit polarized light for a first image and polarized light for a second image (Figure 8, display panel 11 (14/15); Column 18, l.50-63; Column 20, l.41-45);
The surface-divided polarization conversion component according to claim 1, places at a position where the polarized lights enter (Figure 8, surface-divided polarization conversion component 12/14); and
An optical element placed at a position where the polarized lights transmitted through the surface-divided polarization conversion component enter (Figure 8, optical element 4; Column 20, l.17-22),
The optical element being configured to make a virtual image distance of a first image generated from the first polarized light transmitted through the first transmissive part different from a virtual image distance of a second image generated from the second polarized light transmitted through the second transmissive part (Column 23, l.42-54 discloses the use of the optical element 4 to generate first and second virtual images having different distances from one another).
Regarding Claim 19, Choi discloses the display device according to claim 5, which is a VR display device or a 3D display device (Column 18, l.25-38; Column 21, l.55-56).
Regarding Claim 20, the display device according to claim 5, which is a head-mounted display device (Column 18, l.25-38).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Tanaka (US Publication No.: US 2019/0391390 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Choi discloses the surface-divided polarization conversion component according to claim 2.
Choi fails to disclose that the conversion part includes a resin layer with a phase difference of λ/2.
However, Tanaka discloses a similar component where the conversion part includes a resin layer with a phase difference of λ/2 (Tanaka, Paragraph 0083).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the component as disclosed by Choi to include a resin as disclosed by Tanaka. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of preventing reduction of the phase difference value due to erosion of a plasticizer (Tanaka, Paragraph 0089).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Hirosawa (US Publication No.: US 2024/0077730 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Choi discloses the surface-divided polarization conversion component according to claim 1.
Choi fails to disclose that the second transmissive part in a cross-sectional view includes a pair of substrates and a liquid crystal layer placed between the pair of substrates, and the second transmissive part introduces a phase difference that is variable depending on voltage applied to the liquid crystal layer.
However, Hirosawa discloses a similar component where the second transmissive part in a cross-sectional view includes a pair of substrates and a liquid crystal layer placed between the pair of substrates, and the second transmissive part introduces a phase difference that is variable depending on voltage applied to the liquid crystal layer (Hirosawa, Figure 4, liquid crystal layer LC1, substrates 11/12; Paragraph 0052).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the component as disclosed by Choi to include a liquid crystal layer as disclosed by Hirosawa. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of optimizing the affect of the transmissive part based on wavelength thereby improving light transmission (Hirosawa, Paragraph 0052; Paragraph 0118).
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Lee et al (US Publication No.: US 2024/0175676 A1, “Lee”).
Regarding Claim 6, Choi discloses the display device according to claim 5.
Choi fails to disclose that the optical element is a liquid crystal lens, and the liquid crystal lens acts as a lens with a first focal length for the first polarized light and does not act as a lens or acts as a lens with a second focal length for the second polarized light.
However, Lee discloses a similar display where the optical element is a liquid crystal lens, and the liquid crystal lens acts as a lens with a first focal length for the first polarized light and does not act as a lens or acts as a lens with a second focal length for the second polarized light (Lee, Paragraph 0029; Figure 1, liquid crystal lens 108).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the optical element as disclosed by Choi to be a liquid crystal lens as disclosed by Lee. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of optimizing light transmission based on focal length, wavelength, and angle (Lee, Paragraph 0029).
Regarding Claim 7, Choi in view of Lee discloses the display device according to claim 6.
Choi fails to disclose that the liquid crystal lens is a refractive lens, a gradient-index lens, or a diffractive lens.
However, Lee discloses a similar device where the liquid crystal lens is a refractive lens, a gradient-index lens, or a diffractive lens (Lee, Paragraph 0029; Figure 1, liquid crystal lens 108).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the optical element as disclosed by Choi to be a liquid crystal lens as disclosed by Lee. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of optimizing light transmission based on focal length, wavelength, and angle (Lee, Paragraph 0029).
Regarding Claim 8, Choi in view of Lee discloses the display device according to claim 6.
Choi fails to disclose that the liquid crystal lens is a Pancharatnam-Berry phase lens.
However, Lee discloses a similar device where the liquid crystal lens is a Pancharatnam-Berry phase lens (Lee, Paragraph 0029; Figure 1, liquid crystal lens 108).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the optical element as disclosed by Choi to be a liquid crystal lens as disclosed by Lee. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of optimizing light transmission based on focal length, wavelength, and angle (Lee, Paragraph 0029).
Regarding Claim 9, Choi in view of Lee discloses the display device according to claim 6.
Choi fails to disclose that the liquid crystal lens includes a liquid crystal layer and has a focal length that is variable depending on voltage applied to the liquid crystal layer.
However, Lee discloses a similar device where the liquid crystal lens includes a liquid crystal layer and has a focal length that is variable depending on voltage applied to the liquid crystal layer (Lee, Paragraph 0029; Figure 1, liquid crystal lens 108).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the optical element as disclosed by Choi to be a liquid crystal lens as disclosed by Lee. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of optimizing light transmission based on focal length, wavelength, and angle (Lee, Paragraph 0029).
Claims 10, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Takeda et al (US Publication No.: US 2024/0142780 A1, “Takeda”).
Regarding Claim 10, Choi discloses the display device according to claim 5.
Choi fails to disclose a different lens other than a liquid crystal lens.
However, Takeda discloses a similar device comprising a different lens other than a liquid crystal lens (Takeda, Figure 3, different lens 21; Paragraph 0032).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device as disclosed by Choi to include a different lens as disclosed by Takeda. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of optimizing light transmission (Takeda, Paragraph 0033).
Regarding Claim 12, Choi discloses the display device according to claim 5.
Choi fails to disclose that the display device is configured to execute first image correction for an overlapping region between the first image and the second image.
However, Takeda discloses a similar device where the display device is configured to execute first image correction for an overlapping region between the first image and the second image (Takeda, Paragraph 0059).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device as disclosed by Choi to have a image correction process as disclosed by Takeda. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of reducing asthenopia (Takeda, Paragraph 0059).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Choi et al (US Publication No.: US 2016/0356943 A1, “Choi’943).
Regarding Claim 11, Choi discloses the display device according to claim 6.
Choi fails to disclose a combination of a different surface-divided polarization conversion component and a different liquid crystal lens.
However, Choi’943 discloses a similar device comprising a combination of a different surface-divided polarization conversion component and a different liquid crystal lens (Choi, Paragraph 0093 discloses first and second switchable phase retarders; Figure 10; Claim 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device as disclosed by Choi to include a plurality of different surface-divided polarization conversion component and different liquid crystal lens as disclosed by Choi’943. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of adjusting oblique viewing angles (Choi’943, Paragraph 0094).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Takeda in further view of Ishida et al (US Publication No.: US 2022/0014719 A1, “Ishida”).
Regarding Claim 13, Choi in view of Takeda discloses the display device according to claim 12.
Choi fails to disclose that the first image correction includes making the overlapping region appear black.
However, Ishida discloses a similar display where the first image correction includes making the overlapping region appear black (Ishida, Paragraph 0044).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device as disclosed by Choi to make the overlapping region appear black as disclosed by Ishida. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of correcting the difference in image brightness (Ishida, Paragraph 0044).
Regarding Claim 14, Choi in view of Takeda discloses the display device according to claim 12.
Choi fails to disclose that the first image correction decreases luminance of at least one of the first image or the second image in the overlapping region.
However, Ishida discloses a similar display where the first image correction decreases luminance of at least one of the first image or the second image in the overlapping region (Ishida, Paragraphs 0044-0071).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device as disclosed by Choi to change luminance values as disclosed by Ishida. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of correcting the difference in image brightness (Ishida, Paragraph 0044).
Regarding Claim 15, Choi in view of Takeda discloses the display device according to claim 12.
Choi fails to disclose that the first image correction includes determining the overlapping region based on an amount of overlap between the first image and the second image detected by eye tracking.
However, Ishida discloses a similar device where the first image correction includes determining the overlapping region based on an amount of overlap between the first image and the second image detected by eye tracking (Ishida, Figure 10, S2; Paragraph 0039).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device as disclosed by Choi to identify overlapping regions as disclosed by Ishida. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of correcting the difference in image brightness (Ishida, Paragraph 0044).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Mitobe et al (US Publication No.: US 2022/0342134 A1, “Mitobe”).
Regarding Claim 16, Choi discloses the display device according to claim 5.
Choi fails to disclose a guest-host liquid crystal layer between the surface-divided polarization conversion component and the optical element, wherein the guest-host liquid crystal layer contains a light absorbing material as a guest material and contains a liquid crystal as a host material.
However, Mitobe discloses a similar device comprising a guest-host liquid crystal layer between the surface-divided polarization conversion component and the optical element, wherein the guest-host liquid crystal layer contains a light absorbing material as a guest material and contains a liquid crystal as a host material (Mitobe, Paragraph 0265).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device as disclosed by Choi to have a guest-host liquid crystal layer s as disclosed by Mitobe. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of adding a light absorbing function (Mitobe, Paragraph 0265).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Ishida.
Regarding Claim 17, Choi discloses the display device according to claim 5.
Choi fails to disclose that the display device is configured to execute second image correction for a boundary region between the first image and the second image.
However, Ishida discloses a similar device where the display device is configured to execute second image correction for a boundary region between the first image and the second image (Ishida, Figure 6; Paragraphs 0038-0039).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device as disclosed by Choi to identify boundary regions as disclosed by Ishida. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of correcting the difference in image brightness (Ishida, Paragraph 0044).
Regarding Claim 18, Choi in view of Ishida discloses display device according to claim 17.
Choi fails to disclose that the second image correction includes superimposing the first image and the second image by time-division display.
However, Ishida discloses a similar device where that the second image correction includes superimposing the first image and the second image by time-division display (Ishida, Figure 6; Paragraph 0027; Paragraph 0097).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device as disclosed by Choi to identify overlapping regions as disclosed by Ishida. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of correcting the difference in image brightness (Ishida, Paragraph 0044).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIAM QURESHI whose telephone number is (571)272-4434. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Michael Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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.
/MARIAM QURESHI/Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights