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 .
Claims 1-17 are currently pending in the present application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDSs dated 05 September 2024 and 12 May 2025 were 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 (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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson (US20210199879) in view of Lo (US20180188596).
Re: claim 1, Robinson discloses a reflective display panel 48 (Fig. 60; para. 241 discloses reflective); a lens array 1927 (Fig. 60; para. 606 discloses array), disposed on the reflective display panel (disposition in Fig. 60); and a front light module 1920, 1925 (Fig. 60) comprising: a first front light component 1920, 1925, comprising a first light guide plate 1920 (para. 605) and a first light source 1925 (para. 608), wherein the first light guide plate has a first light incident surface (Fig. 60, the left vertically extending side of 1920), and the first light source is disposed at the first light incident surface (disposition disclosed in Fig. 60); and a second front light component 1915, 1901 (Fig. 60; para. 606), disposed between the lens array and the first front light component (Fig. 60 discloses disposition), and comprising a second light guide plate 1901 (para. 605) and a second light source 1915 (para. 606), wherein the second light guide plate has a second light incident surface (Fig. 60, the left, vertically extending surface of 1920), and the second light source is disposed at the second light incident surface (Fig. 60 discloses disposition), wherein the first light incident surface faces the second light incident surface in the second direction (facing disclosed in Fig. 60).
Robinson does not explicitly disclose that the reflective display panel comprises a plurality of pixel structures, wherein each of the pixel structures comprises a left-eye pixel and a right-eye pixel; and that the lens array comprises a plurality of lenticular lenses extending in a first direction and arranged in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, wherein the lenticular lenses are respectively corresponding to the pixel structures.
Lo discloses that the reflective display panel 110, 140, 150 (Fig. 4; para. 41 discloses electrophoretic panel, a known reflective device) comprises a plurality of pixel structures 210a, 210b, 132a, 123b, 132c (Fig. 4), wherein each of the pixel structures comprises a left-eye pixel and a right-eye pixel (para. 39 discloses 210a, 210b are left & right eye); and that the lens array comprises a plurality of lenticular lenses 182 (Fig. 4) extending in a first direction and arranged in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (para. 44; Fig. 4), wherein the lenticular lenses are respectively corresponding to the pixel structures (Fig. 4 discloses correspondence).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the reflective display panel comprise a plurality of pixel structures, wherein each of the pixel structures comprises a left-eye pixel and a right-eye pixel; and that the lens array comprises a plurality of lenticular lenses extending in a first direction and arranged in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, wherein the lenticular lenses are respectively corresponding to the pixel structures, as disclosed by Lo, applied to the device disclosed by Robinson for the purpose of having focused output light beams that are directed to a viewer’s left and/or right eye.
Re: claim 2, Robinson and Lo disclose the limitations of claim 1; and Robinson further discloses that the first light guide plate 1, 1920 (Figs. 1A, 1B, 4B, 60) has a first upper surface (Fig. 4B, 60) away from the second light guide plate (away disclosed in Fig. 60), and the first upper surface comprises a plurality of first microstructures 10, 12 (Fig. 1B, 4; para. 236), wherein the second light guide plate 1901 has a second upper surface adjacent to the first light guide plate (upper surface disclosed in Fig. 60), and the second upper surface comprises a plurality of second microstructures (Fig. 60, where paragraph 261 states that the waveguide structures present in Figs. 1-10 apply to all of the waveguides disclosed in the reference).
Re: claims 7 and 11, Robinson and Lo disclose the limitations of claim 2. While neither reference explicitly discloses adhesive layers having refractive indexes less than the first and second light guide plates, the technique of using adhesive layer to fix components together is well-known in the art. It is also well-known in the art to apply Snell’s law to adjacent components to optimize the amount of reflection, refraction, and transmission of light beams based on their respective refractive indexes. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adhesive layers to fix the positions of adjacent components with respect to each other to minimize or eliminate movement. In addition, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the refractive indexes of the adhesive layers be less than the refractive indexes of the respective first and second light guides for the purpose of obtaining a predetermined, optimized amount of reflection, refraction, and/or transmission of light beams incident on the adhesive layers and the light guides.
Claim(s) 3, 6, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson in view of Lo and Loeppen (US20230194767).
Re: claim 3, Robinson and Lo disclose the limitations of claim 2; however, neither reference explicitly discloses that the first microstructures and the second microstructures extend in the first direction, and a cross-sectional shape of each of the first microstructures perpendicular to the first direction and a cross-sectional shape of each of the second microstructure perpendicular to the first direction are mirror symmetrical.
Loeppen discloses that the first microstructures 16 (Fig. 1, the microstructures on lower waveguide 14) and the second microstructures 16 (Fig. 1, the microstructures on upper waveguide 13) extend in the first direction (Fig. 1, horizontal), and a cross-sectional shape of each of the first microstructures perpendicular to the first direction and a cross-sectional shape of each of the second microstructure perpendicular to the first direction are mirror symmetrical (mirror symmetry disclosed in Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have that the first microstructures and the second microstructures extend in the first direction, and a cross-sectional shape of each of the first microstructures perpendicular to the first direction and a cross-sectional shape of each of the second microstructure perpendicular to the first direction are mirror symmetrical, as disclosed by Loeppen, applied to the device disclosed by Robinson and Lo for the purpose of coupling output light such that it is viewable to a specific viewer (see para. 41 of Loeppen).
Re: claim 6, Robinson and Lo disclose the limitations of claim 2; however, neither reference explicitly discloses that each of the first microstructures is a recessed structure, and each of the first microstructures has a first light receiving surface adjacent to the first light incident surface and a first light back surface away from the first light incident surface, wherein the first light receiving surface is inclined at a first light receiving angle with respect to the first light guide plate, and the first light back surface is inclined at a first light back angle with respect to the first light guide plate, wherein each of the second microstructures is a recessed structure, and each of the second microstructures has a second light receiving surface adjacent to the second light incident surface and a second light back surface away from the second light incident surface, wherein the second light receiving surface is inclined at a second light receiving angle with respect to the second light guide plate, and the second light back surface is inclined at a second light back angle with respect to the second light guide plate, wherein the first light receiving angle is equal to the second light receiving angle, and the first light back angle is equal to the second light back angle.
Loeppen discloses that each of the first microstructures 16 is a recessed structure (recessed disclosed in Fig. 2 & para. 33 “the microstructures 16 are provided in the main surfaces…”), and each of the first microstructures (Fig. 1, elements 16 on waveguide 14) has a first light receiving surface (Fig. 1, vertically extending side of 16) adjacent to the first light incident surface (Fig. 1, the right, vertically extending surface of 14) and a first light back surface (Fig. 1, slanted side of 16 in waveguide 14) away from the first light incident surface, wherein the first light receiving surface is inclined at a first light receiving angle with respect to the first light guide plate (Fig. 1, where the first light receiving angle is approximately 90 degrees; see also MPEP § 215 where figures can be relied upon for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art), and the first light back surface is inclined at a first light back angle with respect to the first light guide plate (Fig. 1, where the first light back angle is approximately 45 degrees), wherein each of the second microstructures (Fig. 1, elements 16 on waveguide 13) is a recessed structure (Fig. 1; para. 33), and each of the second microstructures has a second light receiving surface (Fig. 1, vertically extending side of 16) adjacent to the second light incident surface (Fig. 1, the right, vertically extending surface of 13) and a second light back surface (Fig. 1, the slanted side of 16 in waveguide 13) away from the second light incident surface, wherein the second light receiving surface is inclined at a second light receiving angle with respect to the second light guide plate (Fig. 1, where the second light receiving angle is approximately 90 degrees), and the second light back surface is inclined at a second light back angle with respect to the second light guide plate (Fig. 1, where the second light back angle is approximately 45 degrees), wherein the first light receiving angle is equal to the second light receiving angle, and the first light back angle is equal to the second light back angle (Fig. 1, where the angles are 90 degrees and 45 degrees respectively).
Re: claim 17, Robinson discloses a reflective display panel 48 (Fig. 60; para 241 disclose reflective), a lens array 1927 (Fig. 60; para. 606 discloses array), disposed on the reflective display panel (Fig. 60); and a front light module 1920, 1925, disposed on the lens array (Fig. 60) and comprising: a first front light component, comprising a first light guide plate 1920 and a first light source 1925, wherein the first light guide plate has a first light incident surface (Fig. 60, the left vertically extending side of 1920), and the first light source is disposed at the first light incident surface (Fig. 60); and a second front light component 1901, 1915, disposed between the lens array and the first front light component (disposition disclosed in Fig. 60), and comprising a second light guide plate 1901 and a second light source 1915, wherein the second light guide plate has a second light incident surface (Fig. 60, the left, vertically extending surface of 1920), and the second light source is disposed at the second light incident surface (Fig. 60), wherein the first light guide plate has a first upper surface away from the second light guide plate (Figs. 4B, 60), and the first upper surface comprises a plurality of first microstructures 10, 12 (Figs. 1B, 4; para. 236), wherein the second light guide plate 1901 has a second upper surface adjacent to the first light guide plate (Fig. 60), and the second upper surface comprises a plurality of second microstructures (Fig. 60, where paragraph 261 states that the waveguide structures present in Figs. 1-10 apply to all of the waveguides disclosed in the reference).
Robinson does not explicitly disclose that the reflective display panel comprises a plurality of pixel structures, wherein each of the pixel structures comprises a left-eye pixel and a right-eye pixel; and that the lens array comprises a plurality of lenticular lenses extending in a first direction and arranged in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, wherein the lenticular lenses are respectively corresponding to the pixel structures, and that the first microstructures and the second microstructures extend in the first direction, and a cross-sectional shape of each of the first microstructures perpendicular to the first direction and a cross-sectional shape of each of the second microstructure perpendicular to the first direction are mirror symmetrical.
Lo discloses that the reflective display panel 110, 140, 150 (Fig. 4; para. 41 discloses electrophoretic panel, a known reflective device) comprises a plurality of pixel structures 210a, 210b, 132a, 123b, 132c (Fig. 4), wherein each of the pixel structures comprises a left-eye pixel and a right-eye pixel (para. 39 discloses 210a, 210b are left & right eye); and that the lens array comprises a plurality of lenticular lenses 182 (Fig. 4) extending in a first direction and arranged in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (para. 44; Fig. 4), wherein the lenticular lenses are respectively corresponding to the pixel structures (Fig. 4 discloses correspondence).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the reflective display panel comprise a plurality of pixel structures, wherein each of the pixel structures comprises a left-eye pixel and a right-eye pixel; and that the lens array comprises a plurality of lenticular lenses extending in a first direction and arranged in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, wherein the lenticular lenses are respectively corresponding to the pixel structures, as disclosed by Lo, applied to the device disclosed by Robinson for the purpose of having focused output light beams that are directed to a viewer’s left and/or right eye.
Loeppen discloses that the first microstructures 16 (Fig. 1, the microstructures on lower waveguide 14) and the second microstructures 16 (Fig. 1, the microstructures on upper waveguide 13) extend in the first direction (Fig. 1, horizontal), and a cross-sectional shape of each of the first microstructures perpendicular to the first direction and a cross-sectional shape of each of the second microstructure perpendicular to the first direction are mirror symmetrical (mirror symmetry disclosed in Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have that the first microstructures and the second microstructures extend in the first direction, and a cross-sectional shape of each of the first microstructures perpendicular to the first direction and a cross-sectional shape of each of the second microstructure perpendicular to the first direction are mirror symmetrical, as disclosed by Loeppen, applied to the device disclosed by Robinson and Lo for the purpose of coupling output light such that it is viewable to a specific viewer (see para. 41 of Loeppen).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 8-10, 12-16 are 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA MEDICH whose telephone number is (313)446-4819. The examiner can normally be reached M-T & Th-F 10:00 AM - 7:00 PM ET.
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.
/ANGELA M. MEDICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights