DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments (see Remarks dated 06/22/2026) with respect to claims 1-12 and 14-20 have been considered, but they are moot because of the new grounds of rejection.
On pages 16-18, applicant argues that neither Jin nor Huang recognize the widths/gaps of claims 2 and 3 to be result-effective variables. However, pixel width/gap ratios are well known to be variables which may be optimized to achieve an optical system that functions as desired. Newly cited reference Xu (US-20130201429-A1) explicitly recognizes widths/gaps of color filters and their associated opaque masking layer(s) to be result-effective variables, as labeled in Xu’s Figure 14 (W and D) and discussed in at least [0085]-[0086]. Applicant’s argument that such a relationship is not known to be result-effective disregards what is well known and established in the art.
Further, it is not a requirement that the prior art must explicitly disclose a particular variable, for that variable to be known to be result-effective. In this case, it is clear that one of ordinary skill in the art would know to modify pixel widths/gaps to be within the claimed range during the normal optimization process of optical design. Further, as established by MPEP 2144.05(II)(B), the last sentence states “Thus, after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process”. Therefore, it is not an inherent requirement of Aller that the prior art specifically describe a particular result-effective variable. In fact, In re Aller makes no mention of result-effective variables, and is separate case law to the In re Antonie case cited by applicant.
Applicant also argues that “the relationship recited by claim 3 may lead to unexpected results. However, the act of setting pixel color filters to have certain widths and be certain distances apart in order to direct light is known in the art. The examiner disagrees with the applicant’s assessment that the claimed pixel widths/gaps may yield unexpected results. In order to promote compact prosecution, the applicant may submit an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132, stating how the aforementioned results are unexpected.
On page 18, applicant argues that “Huang fails to disclose any color filters.” While this is incorrect, and Huang explicitly discloses LCD pixels ([0003]) which necessitate color filters, newly cited reference Xu explicitly discloses color filters (Fig. 14, 116’) and an opaque masking layer between color filters (Fig. 14, 124).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
4. Claims 1-3, 9-10, and 17 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al. (US 9930321 B2, of record) in view of Xu et al. (US 20130201429 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jin discloses an electronic device that includes a display (claim 1, “A stereoscopic image display device for displaying a 3D stereoscopic image”), the display comprising:
a substrate (claim 1, “a substrate”);
an array of pixels formed on the substrate (claim 1, “a substrate having an array of pixels thereon”), wherein the array of pixels comprises first pixels, second pixels, and third pixels (claim 1, “the pixels comprising first color pixels, second color pixels, and third color pixels”);
a lenticular lens film formed over the array of pixels (Fig. 7, 120 is formed over 110); and
a color filter layer (column 4 lines 20-34) that is interposed between the array of pixels and the lenticular lens film (Fig. 7, 112), wherein the color filter layer comprises a masking layer that defines openings for color filters (Fig. 7, 114) and wherein the color filters comprise red color filters that are aligned with the first pixels (Fig.7, R), green color filters that are aligned with the second pixels (Fig. 7, G), and blue color filters that are aligned with the third pixels (Fig. 7, B).
Jin fails to explicitly disclose wherein the color filter layer comprises an opaque masking layer.
However, Xu teaches a similar LCD pixel device ([0047]), and discloses wherein a color filter layer comprises an opaque masking layer ([0084], “As shown in Fig. 14, color filter elements 116’…may be separated by lines of…opaque masking material”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Jin and Xu such that the color filter layer was to comprise an opaque masking layer, motivated by “reduc[ing] light leakage between adjacent pixels” ([0084]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Jin discloses wherein the color filters have a width (Jin - Fig. 7), wherein adjacent color filters are separated by a gap that is filled by the opaque masking layer (Jin - Fig. 7, gaps between 112 are filled with 114; Xu - Fig. 14, gaps between 116’ are filled with 124).
Modified Jin fails to explicitly disclose wherein a magnitude of the width is less than a magnitude of the gap.
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering, the process of optical design includes manipulation of variables such as index of refraction, lens surface radii, optical component thickness, distances between components, and other shape concerns, in order to allow an optical system to meet its particular utility. This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are governed by known optics/physics equations and are known to be result-effective (unless the particular range of values meets secondary considerations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the widths/gaps of modified Jin such that it was less than a magnitude of the gap, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to change the widths/gaps of the system such that it was less than the gap, motivated by minimizing the size of the device.
Regarding claim 3, modified Jin discloses wherein the color filters have a width (Jin - Fig. 7), wherein the color filter layer is separated from the array of pixels by a gap (Jin - column 4 lines 20-34).
Modified Jin fails to explicitly disclose wherein a magnitude of the width is less than a magnitude of the gap.
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering, the process of optical design includes manipulation of variables such as index of refraction, lens surface radii, optical component thickness, distances between components, and other shape concerns, in order to allow an optical system to meet its particular utility. This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are governed by known optics/physics equations and are known to be result-effective (unless the particular range of values meets secondary considerations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the width of modified Jin such that it was less than a magnitude of the gap, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to change the width of the system such that it was less than the gap, motivated by minimizing the size of the device.
Regarding claim 9, modified Jin discloses wherein the lenticular lens film comprises lenticular lenses that are elongated in a first direction (Jin - claim 5).
Regarding claim 10, modified Jin discloses wherein the lenticular lenses are curved along a second direction that is orthogonal to the first direction and wherein the lenticular lenses spread light from the array of pixels in the second direction (Jin - column 2 lines 32-34, when bent).
Regarding claim 17, modified Jin discloses wherein, at an edge of the display, each color filter is offset shifted (Jin - column 6 lines 65-66, “the pixels of adjacent rows are shifted by ½ pixel width”), parallel to a plane defined by the substrate (Jin - Fig. 7), towards a center of the display relative to a pixel that is aligned with that color filter (Jin - Fig. 7).
5. Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Jin in view of Xu, and further in view of Jiang et al. (US 20150124200 A1, of record).
Regarding claim 4, modified Jin fails to disclose microlenses that are interposed between the lenticular lens film and the array of pixels, wherein each pixel of the array of pixels is aligned with a respective microlens of the microlenses.
However, Jiang teaches a similar 3D display device having pixels ([0008] & [0041]), and discloses microlenses ([0006]), wherein each pixel of an array of pixels is aligned with a respective microlens of the microlenses (Figs. 3-4, each 52 aligns with 53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine modified Jin and Jiang such that microlenses were interposed between the lenticular film and the array of pixels, wherein each pixel of the array of pixels is aligned with a respective microlens of the microlenses, motivated by the microlens structure acting as a photoresist material (Jiang - [0009]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Jin discloses wherein the microlenses are interposed between the color filter layer and the lenticular lens film (Jiang - Figs. 3-4).
Regarding claim 6, modified Jin discloses wherein the microlenses are interposed between the color filter layer and the array of pixels (Jiang - Figs. 3-4).
6. Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Jin in view of Xu and Jiang, and further in view of Wu et al. (CN 116266031 A, of record).
Regarding claim 7, modified Jin discloses wherein the microlenses are covered by a planarization layer (Jiang - [0037], 55).
Modified Jin fails to disclose wherein the microlenses have a first refractive index, wherein the planarization layer has a second refractive index, and wherein a difference between the first refractive index and the second refractive index is greater than or equal to 0.2.
However, Wu teaches a similar display device (Abstract), and discloses wherein a microlens has a first refractive index, wherein a planarization layer has a second refractive index, and wherein a difference between the first and second indices is greater than or equal to 0.2 (claim 4, “not less than 0.4”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine modified Jin and Wu such that a difference between the refractive indices of the microlenses and planarization layer was greater than or equal to 0.2, motivated by “improv[ing] the reflectivity” (Wu - [0045]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Jin discloses wherein the second refractive index is greater than the first refractive index (Wu - [0044]-[0045]).
7. Claims 11 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Jin in view of Xu, and further in view of Huang et al. (US 20210072428 A1, of record).
Regarding claim 11, modified Jin discloses wherein the substrate has first and second opposing surfaces (Jin - column 4 lines 20-34, bottom and top of upper substrate, respectively), wherein the first surface is interposed between the array of pixels and the second surface (Jin - column 4 lines 20-34, the bottom of the upper substrate is between the pixels of the lower substrate and the top of the upper substrate).
Modified Jin fails to disclose wherein the first surface has convex curvature.
However, Huang teaches a similar 3D display device having pixels and lenticular lenses (Abstract) that are curved (Fig. 16), and discloses wherein a surface of a substrate has convex curvature (Fig. 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine modified Jin and Huang such that the first surface had convex curvature, motivated by directing light toward different angles.
Regarding claim 14, modified Jin discloses wherein the lenticular lens film comprises at least first (Jin - Fig. 8, 120) and second lenticular lenses (Jin - Fig. 7, 120), wherein the first lenticular lens is formed at a center of the display and has a first shape (Jin - Fig. 8), and wherein the second lenticular lens is formed at an edge of the display and has a second shape that is different than the first shape (Jin - Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 15, modified Jin discloses wherein the first shape has a curved upper surface (Huang - Fig. 16, tops of each 46) and wherein the second shape has a planar surface (Huang - Fig. 16, bottoms of each 46).
Regarding claim 16, modified Jin discloses wherein the second lenticular lens is configured to redirect light by a greater amount than the first lenticular lens (Jin - Fig. 8).
8. Claims 12, 18-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Jin in view of Xu and Huang, and further in view of Takama (US 8773600 B2, of record).
Regarding claim 12, modified Jin fails to disclose wherein the display further comprises: a Fresnel lens layer, wherein the lenticular lens film is interposed between the color filter layer and the Fresnel lens layer, wherein the Fresnel lens layer is configured to redirect light by a first magnitude at a center of the display and wherein the Fresnel lens layer is configured to redirect light by a second magnitude that is greater than the first magnitude at an edge of the display.
However, Takama teaches a similar 3D display device (column 7 lines 5-21), and discloses a Fresnel lens layer (Fig. 3), wherein the Fresnel lens layer is configured to redirect light by a first magnitude at a center of the display (Fig. 3, flat surface portion at center does not redirect light) and wherein the Fresnel lens layer is configured to redirect light by a second magnitude that is greater than the first magnitude at an edge of the display (Fig. 3, slanted surface portions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine modified Jin and Takama such the lenticular lens film was interposed between the color filter layer and the Fresnel lens layer, motivated by the “Fresnel-lens…form[ing] phase difference distribution” (Takama - column 3 lines 49-51).
Regarding claim 18, Jin discloses an electronic device that includes a display (claim 1, “A stereoscopic image display device for displaying a 3D stereoscopic image”), the display comprising:
a substrate (claim 1, “a substrate”) having first and second opposing surfaces (column 4 lines 20-34, bottom and top of upper substrate, respectively);
an array of pixels that conforms to the first surface (claim 1, “a substrate having an array of pixels thereon”);
a lenticular lens film formed over the array of pixels (Fig. 7, 120 is formed over 110); and
a color filter layer that is interposed between the array of pixels and the lenticular lens film (Fig. 7 & column 4 lines 20-34), wherein the color filter layer comprises color filters (column 4 lines 28-30) and a masking layer between the color filters (Fig. 7, 114).
Jin fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first surface has convex curvature, and the array of pixels has the convex curvature.
However, Huang teaches a similar 3D display device having pixels and lenticular lenses (Abstract), and discloses wherein a first surface has convex curvature (Fig. 16, the display is convex), and an array of pixels has the convex curvature (Fig. 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Jin and Huang such that the array of pixels had convex curvature, motivated by allowing for greater directional visibility.
Modified Jin fails to explicitly disclose wherein the color filter layer comprises an opaque masking layer.
However, Xu teaches a similar LCD pixel device ([0047]), and discloses wherein a color filter layer comprises an opaque masking layer ([0084], “As shown in Fig. 14, color filter elements 116’…may be separated by lines of…opaque masking material”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine modified Jin and Xu such that the color filter layer was to comprise an opaque masking layer, motivated by “reduc[ing] light leakage between adjacent pixels” ([0084]).
Modified Jin fails to explicitly disclose wherein a Fresnel lens layer is formed over the lenticular film, wherein the Fresnel lens layer redirects light from the array of pixels by different amounts at different positions across the display.
However, Takama teaches a similar 3D display device (column 7 lines 5-21), and discloses wherein a Fresnel lens layer (Fig. 3) redirects light from an array of pixels (Fig. 4, from 40) by different amounts at different positions across the display (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine modified Jin and Takama such that a Fresnel lens layer was formed over the lenticular film, motivated by “form[ing] phase difference distribution” (Takama - column 3 lines 50-51).
Regarding claim 19, modified Jin discloses wherein the Fresnel lens layer redirects light from the array of pixels by a first amount at a center of the display (Takama - Fig. 3, center of Fresnel lens is flat) and by a second amount that is greater than the first amount at an edge of the display (Takama - Fig. 3, light is converged by the edges of the Fresnel lens).
Regarding claim 21, modified Jin discloses wherein the Fresnel lens layer has additional convex curvature (Takama - Fig. 3, light is converged), the electronic device further comprising: a transparent layer that is formed over the Fresnel lens layer (Takama - column 2 lines 28-29, “transparent first and second substrates”).
9. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Jin in view of Huang, and further in view of Boon et al. (US 9910265 B1).
Regarding claim 20, Jin discloses an electronic device that includes a display (claim 1, “A stereoscopic image display device for displaying a 3D stereoscopic image”), the display comprising:
a substrate (claim 1, “a substrate”) having first and second opposing surfaces (column 4 lines 20-34, bottom and top of upper substrate, respectively);
an array of pixels that conforms to the first surface (claim 1, “a substrate having an array of pixels thereon);
a lenticular lens film formed over the array of pixels (Fig. 7, 120 is formed over 110); and
a color filter layer (column 4 lines 20-34) that is interposed between the array of pixels and the lenticular lens film (Fig. 7, 112), wherein the color filter layer comprises color filters (column 4 lines 28-30) and a masking layer between color filters (Fig. 7, 114), a first color filter in a center of the display overlaps a first pixel in a first direction (Fig. 7, bottom-left-most green filter and pixel), a second color filter in an edge of the display overlaps a second pixel in the first direction (Fig. 7, left-most red filter and pixel in the second-to-bottom row), the first color filter has a first center (Fig. 7, center of bottom-left-most green color filter), the first pixel has a second center (Fig. 7, center of bottom-left-most green pixel), the second color filter has a third center (Fig. 7, center of left-most red filter in the second-to-bottom row), the second pixel has a fourth center (Fig. 7, center of the left-most red pixel in the second-to-bottom row), and the first center is aligned with the second center in the first direction (Fig. 7, centers of the bottom-left-most green filter and pixel align).
Jin fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first surface has convex curvature and the array of pixels has convex curvature.
However, Huang teaches a similar 3D display device having pixels and lenticular lenses (Abstract) that are curved (Fig. 16), and discloses wherein surfaces of a substrate has convex curvature (Fig. 16) and an array of pixels have convex curvature (Fig. 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Jin and Huang such that the first surface had convex curvature, motivated by directing light toward different angles.
Modified Jin fails to disclose wherein the color filter layer comprises an opaque masking layer, and the third center is offset relative to the fourth center in a direction that is parallel to a plane defined by the substrate at a portion of the substrate that supports the second pixel.
However, Boon teaches a similar LCD pixel device (column 12 lines 36-61), and discloses wherein a color filter layer comprises an opaque masking layer (Abstract, black matrix), and color filters are offset relative to pixels in a direction that is parallel to a plane defined by a substrate (Fig. 3B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine modified Jin and Boon such that the third center was offset relative to the fourth center in a direction that is parallel to a plane defined by the substrate at a portion of the substrate that supports the second pixel, motivated by imparting different optical qualities in multiple directions.
Conclusion
10. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel Jeffery Jordan whose telephone number is 571-270-7641. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30a-6:00p.
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/D. J. J./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/TRAVIS S FISSEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights