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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 20, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant’s amendment filed February 20, 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows. Claims 10-15 were previously withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 16, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regard to independent claim 1, applicant’s arguments on pages 9-13, that the previously applied prior art fails to disclose all of the limitations of claim 1, as newly amended, have been fully considered and are appreciated. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Namely, applicant argues that the Choi et al. reference does not disclose a lenticular lens or micro lens. However, as set forth below, Woodgate et al. discloses wherein each of the first lens surface and the second lens surface comprises a lenticular lens or a micro lens (see e.g. paragraph [0093] for lenticular surface relief structure of 44 and 52).
Applicant further argues that the Choi references fails to disclose the newly added limitation, “an alignment of the liquid crystal molecules of the liquid crystal layer is based on an electric field between the first electrode and the second electrode.” However, as set forth below, Baek et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 6): an alignment of the liquid crystal molecules of the liquid crystal layer 130 is based on an electric field between the first electrode 110 and the second electrode 120 (see e.g. Figure 6 and note that liquid crystals align according to an applied field between the electrodes due to the permanent or induced dipole moment of the liquid crystal molecule).
Therefore claims 1-9 and 16-20 are rejected as set forth below.
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 1-7 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodgate et al. (US 2014/0022619 A1) in view of Choi et al. (US 2013/0201436 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Woodgate et al. discloses a display device comprising (see e.g. Figures 2 and 7):
a display layer 21 generating light, the display layer including a plurality of pixels (see e.g. paragraph [0091]);
a polarizing layer 31 polarizing the light generated by the display layer 21 (see e.g. paragraph [0092]);
a first optical layer 41 disposed on the polarizing layer 31, the first optical layer 41 including a first lens array 44 comprising at least one first lens having a first lens surface refracting light from the plurality of pixels and a first electrode 71 on the first lens surface of the at least one first lens of the first lens array 44 (see e.g. paragraphs [0093] and [0107]);
a liquid crystal layer 70 disposed on the first optical layer 41, the liquid crystal layer 70 including liquid crystal molecules (see e.g. Figure 7 and paragraph [0107]); and
a second optical layer 51 disposed on the liquid crystal layer 70, the second optical layer 51 including a second lens array 52 comprising at least one second lens having a second lens surface refracting light from the plurality of pixels and a second electrode 73 disposed on the second lens surface of the at least one second lens of the second lens array 52 (see e.g. paragraphs [0093] and [0107]),
wherein each of the first lens surface and the second lens surface comprises a lenticular lens or a micro lens (see e.g. paragraph [0093] for lenticular surface relief structure of 44 and 52).
Woodgate et al. fails to disclose
the first and second electrodes are directly disposed on the at least first and second lenses of the first and second optical layers;
wherein the first and second electrodes are spaced apart from the liquid crystal layer;
wherein the first optical layer and the second optical layer are symmetrical to each other with respect to the liquid crystal layer.
However, Choi et al. discloses (see e.g. Figures 4 and 6):
the first and second electrodes 340/540, 370/570 are directly disposed the at least first and second lenses of on the first and second optical layers 381/581, 391/591;
wherein the first and second electrodes 340/540, 370/570 are spaced apart from the liquid crystal layer 121,122;
wherein the first optical layer 381/581 and the second optical layer 391/591 are symmetrical to each other with respect to the liquid crystal layer 121+110+122.
Given the teachings of Choi et al., 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 Woodgate with the first and second electrodes are directly disposed on the at least first and second lenses of the first and second optical layers; wherein the first and second electrodes are spaced apart from the liquid crystal layer; wherein the first optical layer and the second optical layer are symmetrical to each other with respect to the liquid crystal layer.
Doing so would allow the liquid crystal to be controlled so as to provide a varifocal lens structure which allows a finer control of the liquid crystal alignment (see e.g. paragraph [0100] of Choi et al.).
In regard to claim 2, Woodgate et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and (see e.g. Figure 7):
wherein the first optical layer 41 further includes: a first substrate 40 supporting the first lens array.
Woodgate et al., in view of Yamaguchi, fails to disclose
a first planarization layer disposed over the first electrode, the first planarization layer planarizing a surface of the first optical layer.
However, Choi et al. discloses (see e.g. Figures 4 and 6):
a first planarization layer 382/582 disposed over the first electrode 340/540, the first planarization layer 382/582 planarizing a surface of the first optical layer 381/581.
Given the teachings of Choi et al., 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 Woodgate et al. with a first planarization layer disposed over the first electrode, the first planarization layer planarizing a surface of the first optical layer.
Doing so would allow the liquid crystal to be controlled so as to provide a varifocal lens structure which allows a finer control of the liquid crystal alignment (see e.g. paragraph [0100] of Choi et al.).
In regard to claim 3, Woodgate et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 2 above, and (see e.g. Figure 7):
wherein the second optical layer 51 further includes: a second substrate 54 supporting the second lens array.
Woodgate et al., in view of Yamaguchi, fails to disclose
a second planarization layer disposed over the second electrode, the second planarization layer planarizing a surface of the second optical layer.
However, Choi et al. discloses (see e.g. Figures 4 and 6):
a second planarization layer 392/592 disposed over the second electrode 370/570, the second planarization layer 392/592 planarizing a surface of the second optical layer 391/591.
Given the teachings of Choi et al., 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 Woodgate et al. with a second planarization layer disposed over the second electrode, the second planarization layer planarizing a surface of the second optical layer.
Doing so would allow the liquid crystal to be controlled so as to provide a varifocal lens structure which allows a finer control of the liquid crystal alignment (see e.g. paragraph [0100] of Choi et al.).
In regard to claim 4, Woodgate et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 3 above, and
the at least one first lens includes a convex surface (see e.g. Figures 2 and 7).
Woodgate et al. fails to disclose
wherein the at least one first lens is arranged such that the convex surface thereof faces the liquid crystal layer.
However, Choi et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 4):
wherein the at least one first lens 381 is arranged such that the convex surface thereof faces the liquid crystal layer 121+110+122.
Given the teachings of Choi et al., 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 Woodgate et al. with wherein the at least one first lens is arranged such that the convex surface thereof faces the liquid crystal layer.
Doing so would allow the liquid crystal to be controlled so as to provide a varifocal lens structure which allows a finer control of the liquid crystal alignment (see e.g. paragraph [0100] of Choi et al.).
In regard to claim 5, Woodgate et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 4 above, and
the at least one second lens includes a convex surface (see e.g. Figures 2 and 7).
Woodgate et al. fails to disclose
wherein the at least one second lens is disposed such that the convex surface thereof faces the convex surface of the at least one first lens.
However, Choi et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 4):
wherein the at least one second lens 391 is disposed such that the convex surface thereof faces the convex surface of the at least one first lens 381.
Given the teachings of Choi et al., 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 Woodgate et al. with wherein the at least one second lens is disposed such that the convex surface thereof faces the convex surface of the at least one first lens.
Doing so would allow the liquid crystal to be controlled so as to provide a varifocal lens structure which allows a finer control of the liquid crystal alignment (see e.g. paragraph [0100] of Choi et al.).
In regard to claim 6, Woodgate et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 4 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the first planarization layer and the second planarization layer are adjacent to the liquid crystal layer.
However, Choi et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 4):
wherein the first planarization layer 382 and the second planarization layer 392 are adjacent to the liquid crystal layer 121+110+122.
Given the teachings of Choi et al., 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 Woodgate et al. with wherein the first planarization layer and the second planarization layer are adjacent to the liquid crystal layer.
Doing so would allow the liquid crystal to be controlled so as to provide a varifocal lens structure which allows a finer control of the liquid crystal alignment (see e.g. paragraph [0100] of Choi et al.).
In regard to claim 7, Woodgate et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 5 above, but fails to disclose
wherein: a distance between a center of the at least one first lens and a center of the at least one second lens is a shortest distance as compared to distances between all other portions of the at least one first lens to the at least one second lens; and a distance between an edge of the at least one first lens and an edge of the at least one second lens is a longest distance as compared to the distances between all other portions of the at least one first lens to the at least one second lens.
However, Choi et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 4):
wherein: a distance between a center of the at least one first lens 381 and a center of the at least one second lens 391 is a shortest distance as compared to distances between all other portions of the at least one first lens to the at least one second lens; and
a distance between an edge of the at least one first lens 381 and an edge of the at least one second lens 391 is a longest distance as compared to the distances between all other portions of the at least one first lens to the at least one second lens.
Given the teachings of Choi, 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 Woodgate et al. with wherein: a distance between a center of the at least one first lens and a center of the at least one second lens is a shortest distance as compared to distances between all other portions of the at least one first lens to the at least one second lens; and a distance between an edge of the at least one first lens and an edge of the at least one second lens is a longest distance as compared to the distances between all other portions of the at least one first lens to the at least one second lens.
Doing so would allow the liquid crystal to be controlled so as to provide a varifocal lens structure which allows a finer control of the liquid crystal alignment (see e.g. paragraph [0100] of Choi et al.).
In regard to claim 16, Woodgate et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 3 above, but fails to disclose
the first planarization layer is composed of a same resin as the first lens array; and
the second planarization layer is composed of a same resin as the second lens array.
However, Choi et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 4 and paragraph [0042] where the material may be transparent plastic):
the first planarization layer 382 is composed of a same resin as the first lens array 381; and
the second planarization layer 392 is composed of a same resin as the second lens array 391.
Given the teachings of Choi et al., 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 Woodgate et al. with the first planarization layer is composed of a same resin as the first lens array; and the second planarization layer is composed of a same resin as the second lens array.
Doing so would allow the liquid crystal to be controlled so as to provide a varifocal lens structure which allows a finer control of the liquid crystal alignment (see e.g. paragraph [0100] of Choi et al.).
In regard to claim 17, Woodgate et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 2 above, and
wherein each of the first substrate and the second substrate is a transparent substrate (see e.g. Figures 2-5 and note that light is transmitted through the substrates).
In regard to claim 18, Woodgate et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein each of the first electrode and the second electrode is a transparent electrode.
However, Choi et al. discloses
wherein each of the first electrode and the second electrode is a transparent electrode (see e.g. paragraph [0043]).
Given the teachings of Choi et al., 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 Woodgate et al. with wherein each of the first electrode and the second electrode is a transparent electrode.
Doing so would allow the liquid crystal to be controlled so as to provide a varifocal lens structure which allows a finer control of the liquid crystal alignment (see e.g. paragraph [0100] of Choi et al.).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodgate et al. (US 2014/0022619 A1) in view of Choi et al. (US 2013/0201436 A1) and further in view of Baek et al. (US 2013/0002970 A1).
In regard to claim 8, Woodgate et al., in view of Choi et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 7 above, but fails to discloses
an alignment of the liquid crystal molecules of the liquid crystal layer is based on an electric field between the first electrode and the second electrode,
when a voltage is applied to the first electrode and the second electrode, the liquid crystal molecules overlapping with the center of the at least one first lens and the center of the at least one second lens are aligned in a direction vertical to the liquid crystal layer, and the liquid crystal molecules overlapping with the edge of the at least one first lens and the edge of the at least one second lens are aligned in a direction horizontal to the liquid crystal layer.
However, Baek et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 6):
an alignment of the liquid crystal molecules of the liquid crystal layer 130 is based on an electric field between the first electrode 110 and the second electrode 120 (see e.g. Figure 6 and note that liquid crystals align according to an applied field between the electrodes due to the permanent or induced dipole moment of the liquid crystal molecule),
when a voltage is applied to the first electrode 110 and the second electrode 120, the liquid crystal molecules 135 overlapping with the center of the at least one first lens (i.e. at P1) aligned in a direction vertical to the liquid crystal layer, and the liquid crystal molecules 135 overlapping with the edge of the at least one first lens (i.e. at a center between P1 and P2) are aligned in a direction horizontal to the liquid crystal layer. The combination of Woodgate et al., in view of Choi et al., with Baek et al. would result in wherein, when a voltage is applied to the first electrode and the second electrode, the liquid crystal molecules overlapping with the center of the at least one first lens and the center of the at least one second lens are aligned in a direction vertical to the liquid crystal layer, and the liquid crystal molecules overlapping with the edge of the at least one first lens and the edge of the at least one second lens are aligned in a direction horizontal to the liquid crystal layer.
Given the teachings of Baek et al., 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 Woodgate et al., in view of Choi et al., with an alignment of the liquid crystal molecules of the liquid crystal layer is based on an electric field between the first electrode and the second electrode,
when a voltage is applied to the first electrode and the second electrode, the liquid crystal molecules overlapping with the center of the at least one first lens and the center of the at least one second lens are aligned in a direction vertical to the liquid crystal layer, and the liquid crystal molecules overlapping with the edge of the at least one first lens and the edge of the at least one second lens are aligned in a direction horizontal to the liquid crystal layer.
Doing so would provide a graded index of refraction which allows for a desired lensing effect.
In regard to claim 9, Woodgate et al., in view of Choi et al., with discloses the limitations as applied to claim 8 above, but fails to disclose
wherein: a smallest refractive index of the liquid crystal layer is at a first portion where the center of the at least one first lens and the center of the at least one second lens overlap with each other; and a largest refractive index of the liquid crystal layer is at a second portion where the edge of the at least one first lens and the edge of the at least one second lens overlap with each other.
However, Baek et al. discloses
wherein: a smallest refractive index of the liquid crystal layer is at a first portion where the center of the at least one first lens is; and a largest refractive index of the liquid crystal layer is at a second portion where the edge of the at least one first lens is (see e.g. Figure 6 and paragraph [0052] where it is noted that it is a positive liquid crystal). The combination of Woodgate et al., in view of Choi et al., with Baek et al. would result in wherein: a smallest refractive index of the liquid crystal layer is at a first portion where the center of the at least one first lens and the center of the at least one second lens overlap with each other; and a largest refractive index of the liquid crystal layer is at a second portion where the edge of the at least one first lens and the edge of the at least one second lens overlap with each other.
Given the teachings of Baek et al., 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 Woodgate et al., in view of Woodgate et al., in view of Choi et al., with wherein: a smallest refractive index of the liquid crystal layer is at a first portion where the center of the at least one first lens and the center of the at least one second lens overlap with each other; and a largest refractive index of the liquid crystal layer is at a second portion where the edge of the at least one first lens and the edge of the at least one second lens overlap with each other.
Doing so would provide a graded index of refraction which allows for a desired lensing effect.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodgate et al. (US 2014/0022619 A1) in view of Choi et al. (US 2013/0201436 A1) and further in view of Kang (US 2013/0050595 A1), hereinafter Kang ‘595.
In regard to claim 19, Woodgate et al., in view of Choi et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fail to disclose
wherein, when there is no voltage applied to the first electrode and the second electrode, the display device operates in a 2D mode, wherein a 2D image is displayed by the display device in the 2D mode.
However, Kang ‘595 discloses
wherein, when there is no voltage applied to the first electrode and the second electrode, the display device operates in a 2D mode, wherein a 2D image is displayed by the display device in the 2D mode (see e.g. paragraph [0052]).
Given the teachings of Kang ‘595, 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 Woodgate et al., in view of Choi et al., with wherein, when there is no voltage applied to the first electrode and the second electrode, the display device operates in a 2D mode, wherein a 2D image is displayed by the display device in the 2D mode.
Doing so would provide a switching capability between a 2D and 3D state using a birefringent property of the liquid crystals.
In regard to claim 20, Woodgate et al., in view of Choi et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein, when a voltage is applied to the first electrode and the second electrode, the display device operates in a 3D mode, wherein a 3D image is displayed by the display device in the 3D mode.
However, Kang ‘595 discloses
wherein, when a voltage is applied to the first electrode and the second electrode, the display device operates in a 3D mode, wherein a 3D image is displayed by the display device in the 3D mode (see e.g. paragraph [0052]).
Given the teachings of Kang ‘595, 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 Woodgate et al., in view of Choi et al., with wherein, when a voltage is applied to the first electrode and the second electrode, the display device operates in a 3D mode, wherein a 3D image is displayed by the display device in the 3D mode.
Doing so would provide a switching capability between a 2D and 3D state using a birefringent property of the liquid crystals.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA M MERLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3207. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00AM-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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571) 272-9791. 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.
/JESSICA M MERLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights