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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-13 and 15-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (US 2020/0068191 A1).
Re claims 1 and 15, Yu et al. discloses a device comprising: a lens assembly (4); a screen assembly, comprising a first screen (1) and a second screen (2) between the first screen and the lens assembly, configured to display an image in a transmission area of the lens assembly, wherein the image comprises image units (101) with different image distances (d1, d2), wherein upon a condition that the second screen is a refractive screen, and the second screen transmits the image unit, and a refractive index of the second screen is adjusted according to the image distances (d1, d2) of the image units (paragraph 0022). As to the claim limitation, “wherein upon a condition that the second screen is a display screen, the first screen and the second screen display the image units, and the image unit displayed by the first screen is transmitted through the second screen”, the claim limitation is based on a condition that the second screen is a display screen (paragraph 0022). Therefore, the claim language does not require that the second screen function as a display screen, and in the case that the second screen does not function as the display screen, the limitation of “the first screen and the second screen display the image units, and the image unit displayed by the first screen is transmitted through the second screen”, is not required. Yu et al. does not disclose the device wherein the first screen displays each image unit frame by frame.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to employ the device wherein the first screen displays each image unit frame by frame since doing so is well known in the art to obtain a motion display.
Re claims 2 and 21, Yu et al. discloses the device wherein the screen assembly comprises a plurality of second screen (20), and each of the plurality of second screens are stacked between the first screen and the lens assembly (Fig. 7, ref. 20).
Re claim 3, As to the claim limitations, “wherein upon the condition that the second screen is the display screen, the image distances of the image units displayed by each of the plurality of second screen are different”, the claim language does not require that the second screen function as a display screen, and in the case that the second screen does not function as the display screen, the limitation of “the image distances of the image units displayed by each of the plurality of second screen are different”, is not required.
Re claim 4, Yu et al. discloses the device wherein upon the condition that the second screen is the refractive screen, the refractive index of the second screen is adjusted by applying different voltage (paragraph 0022).
Re claim 5, Yu et al. does not disclose the device wherein the second screen is a TN screen.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to employ the device wherein the second screen is a TN screen since a TN screen is a well-known and conventional display for improved response time.
Re claims 6 and 16, Yu et al. discloses the device wherein the first screen (1) and the second screen (2) are coaxially superimposed (Fig. 6, ref. 1, 2).
Re claims 7 and 17, Yu et al. discloses the device wherein the first screen and the second screen are coaxially superimposed and arranged at a focal plane position of the lens assembly (paragraph 0003).
Re claims 8 and 18, Yu et al. discloses the device wherein the display screen or the refractive screen is a transparent screen (Fig. 7, ref. 1, 2).
Re claims 9 and 19, Yu et al. discloses the device comprising a control unit (3) is configured to control the first screen and the second screen to display the image units upon condition that the second screen is the display screen; or configured to control the first screen to display the image unit, and adjust the refractive index of the second screen according to the image distance of the image unit upon the condition that the second screen is the refractive screen (paragraphs 0023, 0038). Yu et al. does not disclose the device wherein the first screen displays each image unit frame by frame.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to employ the device wherein the first screen displays each image unit frame by frame since doing so is well known in the art to obtain a motion display.
Re claims 10 and 20, Yu et al. disclose the device wherein the lens assembly (4) is an integrated structure (Fig. 7).
Re claims 11, Yu et al. discloses the device wherein the lens assembly (4) is of a split structure (Fig. 7).
Re claim 12, Yu et al. discloses the device wherein the lens assembly comprises a left lens and a right lens (Fig. 7) but does not disclose that both are made by multiple lenses.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to employ the device wherein both are made by multiple lens since adding another lens to a lens assembly is well known in the art to improve an optical system.
Re claim 13, Yu et al. discloses the device wherein the screen assembly is of an integrated structure (Fig. 2, ref. 1, 2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD H KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2294. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 10 am-6:30 pm.
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.
/RICHARD H KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights