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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 08/15/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-13 and 27-39 are now pending in the application. Claims 1, 4-5 and 8 have been amended, previously withdrawn claims 14-26 have been canceled and new claims 27-39 have been added by the Applicant.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Priority
As required by e M.P.E.P. 201.04, 210, 214.03, acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on a National Stage entry of PCT/EP2023/058530, with the International Filing Date of 03/31/2023 that claims priority from Provisional Application USA # 63332665, filed 04/19/2022.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-4, 6-10, 12-13, 27-29, 31-36 and 38-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Keshavarz Akhlaghi et al. (hereafter Keshavarz, of record see IDS dated 02/03/2025) US 20200341174 A1.
In regard to independent claim 1, Keshavarz teaches (see Figs. 1-13) a display comprising a two-dimensional array of display pixels (i.e. display device using 2-dimensional array of micro-structures/pixels and nano-structures formed conformally thereon that operate to generate optical effects, see abstract, paragraphs [31-41,43-49],e.g. Figs. 2-13), the display comprising:
a substrate extending in a plane (i.e. substrate e.g. 106, 128,134,138, generally any structure on which optical structures, paragraphs [31,36,40,43-44], Figs. 2-8);
a polymer layer supported by the substrate (i.e. as micro- and nano-structures after fabrication on a mold casted on a different substrate, such as a plastic sheet, resin, paragraphs [47-49]), the polymer layer having a surface patterned to correspond to the two-dimensional array of display pixels (2-dimensional array of micro-structures/pixels, paragraphs [34, 37-39,42-43,47], Figs. 10-13), a shape of the surface within each display pixel varying with respect to the plane (i.e. as surface of microstructures/pixels varies with respect to plane of substrate, e.g. 106, 128,134,138 as depicted Figs. 2-9,13), so that different areas of each display pixel reflect light incident on the display from a common direction into different viewing angles (i.e. as reflection of the incident light from the two or more faces e.g. 112, 114, 118, 120, 122, of the pyramids reveals content of image #1 viewable by observer #1, and content of image #2 viewable by observer #2, etc e.g. paragraphs [37-38], e.g. Figs. 4-7), each of the different areas corresponding to a respective frame pixel (i.e. as each of areas of micro-structure e.g. 102,104, with plasmonic pixel(s) e.g. angled at different directions as e.g. faces 112, 114, 118, 120, 122, where each such high face density micro-surface holds a frame of an animation, paragraphs [33-43,45-49] Figs. 2-7, 9-13), the surface at each of the different areas comprising a respective metasurface pattern (i.e. as plasmonic surface pattern e.g. nano-structures/texture(s) e.g. 108,110 , paragraphs [31-40,45-49] Figs. 2-7, 9-13); and
a layer of a first material on the surface of the polymer layer, the first material being different from a material composing the polymer layer (i.e. metal, metallic layer e.g. aluminum, or dielectric, paragraphs [33,41,47]), the metasurface patterns and the layer of the first material being configured so that the reflected light is spectrally filtered by each frame pixel (i.e. as micro-structures with plurality of nano-structures conformal to micro-structures e.g. faces 112-122, to create structural colors from incident light, i.e. paragraphs [11,34,36-38,40-43,47]), the metasurface patterns for different frame pixels of at least some of the display pixels varying so that each of the at least some of the display pixels reflect differently colored light into the different viewing angles (i.e. as plasmonic surface pixel pattern, with faces angled at different directions e.g. faces 112, 114, 118, 120, 122, allow for images #1 and #2, #3 etc., may be uniformly patterned with two different types of plasmonic structures, such that device displays plasmonic color #1 which switches to plasmonic color #2, #3, or animation frame, etc. e.g. paragraphs [37,11,34,36,39,40-43,47]),
wherein the frame pixels are arranged such that projecting viewing directions of the frame pixels onto a plane defines an animation arc along which an animation is displayed (i.e. as best understood, given the structures of plasmonic pixel(s) e.g. arranges and angled at different directions as e.g. angled plasmonic surface faces 112, 114, 118, 120, 122 in discrete form showing animation, and in high density form as curved three-dimensional shape to displaying smooth animation, for the positions along which animations are viewed by observer(s) in positions 1, 2, 3, or more for smooth animation, form an arc shape over display device which is in observation/viewing plane, see e.g. Fig. 5, or an arc formed by tilting sample display device, paragraphs [37-43,45-49], as depicted in Figs. 2-7, 9-13; it is further noted that because the structure of the claimed system, as identified above and in the original action, is the same as that claimed, it must inherently perform the same function of animation arc along which an animation is intended to be viewed. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (The absence of a disclosure in a prior art reference relating to function did not defeat the Board’s finding of anticipation of claimed apparatus because the limitations at issue were found to be inherent in the prior art reference); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2114.
In regard to independent claim 27, Keshavarz teaches (see Figs. 1-13) a display (i.e. display device using 2-dimensional array of micro-structures/pixels and nano-structures formed conformally thereon that operate to generate optical effects, see abstract, paragraphs [31-41,43-49],e.g. Figs. 2-13), the display comprising:
a substrate (i.e. substrate e.g. 106, 128,134,138, generally any structure on which optical structures, paragraphs [31,36,40,43-44], Figs. 2-8);
a patterned polymer layer supported by the substrate (i.e. as micro- and nano-structures after fabrication on a mold casted on a different substrate, such as a plastic sheet, resin, paragraphs [47-49]), the patterned polymer layer defining a two-dimensional array of display pixels (2-dimensional array of micro-structures/pixels, paragraphs [34, 37-39,42-43,47], Figs. 10-13), each display pixel including a plurality of frame pixels (i.e. as each of pixel areas of micro-structure e.g. 102,104, with plasmonic pixel(s) e.g. angled at different directions as e.g. faces 112, 114, 118, 120, 122, where each such high face density micro-surface holds a frame of an animation, paragraphs [33-43,45-49] Figs. 2-7, 9-13), each frame pixel having a surface orientation corresponding to a respective viewing direction (i.e. as reflection of the incident light from the two or more faces e.g. 112, 114, 118, 120, 122, of the pyramids reveals content of image #1 viewable by observer #1, and content of image #2 viewable by observer #2, etc e.g. paragraphs [37-38], e.g. Figs. 4-7); and
a material layer disposed on the patterned polymer layer (i.e. metal, metallic layer e.g. aluminum, or dielectric, paragraphs [33,41,47]), the material layer and respective metasurface patterns of the frame pixels being configured to spectrally filter light reflected from the frame pixels (i.e. as micro-structures with plurality of nano-structures conformal to micro-structures e.g. faces 112-122, to create structural colors from incident light, i.e. paragraphs [11,34,36-38,40-43,47]),
wherein different frame pixels of a display pixel are configured to reflect spectrally filtered light toward different viewing directions(i.e. as plasmonic surface pixel pattern, with faces angled at different directions e.g. faces 112, 114, 118, 120, 122, allow for images #1 and #2, #3 etc., may be uniformly patterned with two different types of plasmonic structures, such that device displays plasmonic color #1 which switches to plasmonic color #2, #3, or animation frame, etc. e.g. paragraphs [37,11,34,36,39,40-43,47]), and
wherein the frame pixels are spatially organized so that projections of the respective viewing directions of the frame pixels onto an animation-arc plane identify positions along an animation path corresponding to temporal positions of an animation displayed by the display (i.e. as best understood, given the structures of plasmonic pixel(s) e.g. arranges and angled at different directions as e.g. angled plasmonic surface faces 112, 114, 118, 120, 122 in discrete form showing animation, and in high density form as curved three-dimensional shape to displaying smooth animation, for the positions along which animations are viewed by observer(s) in positions 1, 2, 3, or more for smooth animation, form an arc shape over display device which is in observation/viewing plane over display device see e.g. Fig. 5, or an arc formed by tilting sample display device, and given that each plasmonic surface face pixel e.g. 112,114,..122 or continuous curved three-dimensional shape(s) angled in different viewing directions display animation frames which are different temporal image instants, e.g. paragraphs [08,37-39, 40,43,45-49] Figs. 2-7, 9-13, as depicted in Figs. 2-7, 9-13; it is further noted that because the structure of the claimed system, as identified above and in the original action, is the same as that claimed, it must inherently perform the same function of animation arc along which an animation is intended to be viewed. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (The absence of a disclosure in a prior art reference relating to function did not defeat the Board’s finding of anticipation of claimed apparatus because the limitations at issue were found to be inherent in the prior art reference); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2114.
Regarding claim 2, Keshavarz teaches (see Figs. 1-13) that the metasurface patterns for the frame pixels of each display pixel vary (i.e. as plasmonic surface pattern of nano-structures/texture(s) e.g. 108,110 of micro-structure/pixels varies, paragraphs [31-40,45-49] Figs. 2-7, 9-13) so that the display reflects incident light to present different images into at least some of the different viewing angles (i.e. as reflection of the incident light from the different faces of the pyramids (nano-structures of micro-structures/pixels) reveals content of image #1 viewable by observer #1, and content of image #2 viewable by observer #2, e.g. paragraphs [37-40], e.g. Figs. 4-7).
Regarding claim 3, Keshavarz teaches (see Figs. 1-13) that the metasurface patterns for the frame pixels of each display pixel vary so that the different images correspond to different spatial views of an object (i.e. as plasmonic surface pattern of nano-structures/texture(s) of micro-structure/pixels may vary to show two perspectives of a single scene/object, encoded images and frames amination, see e.g. paragraphs [36-39, 40,45-49] Figs. 2-7, 9-13).
Regarding claim 4, Keshavarz teaches (see Figs. 1-13) that the metasurface patterns for the frame pixels of each display pixel vary so that the different images correspond to different frames in an animation of an object (i.e. as plasmonic surface pattern of nano-structures/texture(s) of micro-structure/pixels may vary to show frames amination, as plasmonic surface faces and/or curved three-dimensional shape(s) angled in different viewing directions displaying animation, over the ark formed intended viewing positions of the viewer, e.g. Fig. 5, paragraphs [37-39, 40,43,45-49] Figs. 2-7, 9-13), wherein each frame pixel is associated with a time in the animation based on projection of the frame pixel's viewing direction onto the plane of the animation arc (given that each plasmonic surface face pixel e.g. 112,114,..122 or continuous curved three-dimensional shape(s) angled in different viewing directions display animation frames which are different temporal image instants, e.g. paragraphs [08,37-39, 40,43,45-49] Figs. 2-7, 9-13).
Regarding claim 6, Keshavarz teaches (see Figs. 1-13) that the surface of the polymer layer of each display pixel is dome-shaped (i.e. as surface of micro-structure/pixels on plastic sheet can be dome shaped as depicted in e.g. Fig. 13, see e.g. paragraphs [40,45-49] Figs. 9-9, 13).
Regarding claim 7, Keshavarz teaches (see Figs. 1-13) that the first material comprises a metal (i.e. as layer is thin metal, metallic layer e.g. aluminum, paragraphs [33,41]).
Regarding claims 8 and 34-35, Keshavarz teaches (see Figs. 1-13) that the first material has a refractive index higher than a refractive index of the polymer layer (i.e. since layer is dielectric including high refractive index dielectrics e.g. TiO2 e.g. n=2.612, and ZnS n=2.368 at 587 nm, paragraphs [33,41]), and wherein frame pixels at a given coordinate within respective display pixels collectively present an image or frame of the animation at a corresponding viewing angle (given that each plasmonic surface face pixel e.g. 112,114,..122 angled in different viewing directions displays a frame of corresponding to different viewing direction(s), e.g. e.g. Fig. 5 paragraphs [08,37-39, 40,43,45-49] Figs. 2-7, 9-13).
Regarding claim 9, Keshavarz teaches (see Figs. 1-13) that each display pixel comprises an array of the frame pixels, each frame pixel in the array corresponding to a respective one of the different viewing angles (i.e. each micro-structure e.g. 102,104 comprises plasmonic pixel(s) nano-structure(s) corresponding to different viewing angles, e.g. paragraphs [33-40,45-49], e.g. revealing content to observer #1, and observer #2, e.g. paragraphs [37-38], e.g. Figs. 4-7).
Regarding claim 10, Keshavarz teaches (see Figs. 1-13) that the metasurface patterns and layer of the first material are arranged so that each frame pixel spectrally filters incident light by plasmonic resonance (i.e. as micro-structures with plurality of nano-structures of plasmonic surface that through excitation of plasmons create structural colors from incident light, i.e. paragraphs [09,13,33-34,36-37,40-43,47]).
Regarding claim 12, Keshavarz teaches (see Figs. 1-13) further comprising a protective layer, the polymer layer being arranged between the substrate and the protective layer (i.e. as additional protective layers over plastic sheet, resin and thin metallic, dielectric layer, paragraphs [31, 47], claim 8).
Regarding claim 13, Keshavarz teaches (see Figs. 1-13) the layer of the first material substantially conforms to the metasurface pattern of each of the different areas. (i.e. metal, metallic layer e.g. aluminum, or dielectric, paragraphs [33,41,47], with its nano-structures that are conformal to micro-structures, i.e. paragraphs [11,34,36-37,40-43,47]).
Regarding claim 28, Keshavarz teaches (see Figs. 1-13) that a temporal position of a frame of the animation is based on an angle between a projected viewing direction of a corresponding frame pixel and a start position of the animation path (given that each plasmonic surface face pixel e.g. 112,114,..122 or continuous curved three-dimensional shape(s) are based on angled in different viewing directions display animation frames which are different temporal image instants including start position angle of the animation, e.g. paragraphs [08,37-39, 40,43,45-49] Figs. 2-7, 9-13).
Regarding claim 29, Keshavarz teaches (see Figs. 1-13) that frame pixels having viewing directions that project to a common position along the animation path display a common animation time while providing different spatial views (given that symmetric plasmonic surface face pixels e.g. 112,114,..122 or continuous curved three-dimensional shape(s) are angled in same viewing directions display animation frames which can have same temporal animation frame, but different image based on different position on the plasmonic surface, given the encoded images and their observation angles are selected by designing the micro-surface, see Figs. 5 and 13, paragraphs [08,37-39, 40,43,45-49] Figs. 2-7, 9-13).
Not
30. (New) The display of claim 27, wherein movement of a viewer's viewing direction along the animation path causes the displayed animation to progress in time, and movement of the viewer's viewing direction in a direction transverse to the animation path changes a parallax view without changing the animation time.
Regarding claim 31, Keshavarz teaches (see Figs. 1-13) that each display pixel comprises a curved microstructure having a plurality of locally planar frame-pixel regions carrying the respective metasurface patterns (as curved pixel areas of micro-structure e.g. 102,104, with planar plasmonic pixel(s) e.g. angled at different directions as e.g. faces 112, 114, 118, 120, 122, and/or high face density micro-surface, as best depicted in Figs. 2-5, 13, paragraphs [33-43,45-49]) .
Regarding claim 32, Keshavarz teaches (see Figs. 1-13) that corresponding frame pixels occupying corresponding relative positions within different display pixels collectively form a displayed image or animation frame at a corresponding viewing direction (as plasmonic pixel(s) e.g. angled and at different positions e.g. faces 112, 114, 118, 120, 122, display animation or image(s), as depicted in Figs. 2-5, 13, paragraphs [08, 33-43,45-49]) .
Regarding claim 33, Keshavarz teaches (see Figs. 1-13) that the display pixels are symmetric with respect to the animation path such that at least two frame pixels having different viewing directions correspond to a same temporal position of the animation (given that symmetric plasmonic surface face pixels e.g. 112,114,..122 or continuous curved three-dimensional shape(s) are angled in directions display animation frames which can have same temporal animation frame, but different image based on different position on the plasmonic surface, given the encoded images and their observation angles are selected by designing the micro-surface, see Figs. 5 and 13, paragraphs [08,37-39, 40,43,45-49] Figs. 2-7, 9-13).
Regarding claim 36, Keshavarz teaches (see Figs. 1-13) that the display pixel is configured with symmetry around the animation arc, and the projection of the viewing directions of each of the frame pixels onto the animation arc is identical even though the viewing directions differ.
(as best understood, given that symmetric plasmonic surface face pixels e.g. 112,114,..122 or continuous curved three-dimensional shape(s) are angled in directions display animation frames which can have same temporal animation frame, but different viewing direction tied to the particular observer position based on different position on the plasmonic surface, given the encoded images and their observation angles are selected by designing the micro-surface, see Figs. 5 and 13, paragraphs [08,37-39, 40,43,45-49] Figs. 2-7, 9-13).
Regarding claim 38, Keshavarz teaches (see Figs. 1-13) that the frame pixels comprise substantially planar facets disposed on the dome-shaped display pixel (as curved dome shaped pixel areas of micro-structure e.g. 102,104, with planar plasmonic pixel(s) e.g. angled at different directions as e.g. faces 112, 114, 118, 120, 122, and/or high face density micro-surface, as best depicted in Figs. 2-5, 13, paragraphs [33-43,45-49]) .
Regarding claim 39, Keshavarz teaches (see Figs. 1-13) that corresponding frame pixels occupying corresponding relative positions within different display pixels collectively form a displayed image or animation frame at a corresponding viewing direction (as plasmonic pixel(s) e.g. angled and at different positions e.g. faces 112, 114, 118, 120, 122, display animation or image(s), as depicted in Figs. 2-5, 13, paragraphs [08, 33-43,45-49]) .
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 11, 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keshavarz Akhlaghi et al. (hereafter Keshavarz, of record see IDS dated 02/03/2025) US 20200341174 A1.
Regarding claim 11, Keshavarz teaches (see Figs. 1-13)further comprising an adhesive layer (i.e. as the device includes adhesive layer(s), e.g. paragraphs [6,29,31], claim 8), but does not specify that it is between the substrate and the polymer layer (i.e. substrate, e.g. generally any structure on which optical structures, and plastic sheet, resin, paragraphs [31,36,40,43-44,47-49], Figs. 2-8). However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the adhesive layer between the substrate and plastic, resin sheet layer, in order to provide adhesion between the two layers and to provide that the optical structures may be formed or supported by the substrate (see paragraphs [31, 50, 6,29]), since it has been held that a mere reversal of the working parts of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955), and In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167 (MPEP §2144.04, sec. VI).
Moreover, it has been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). The rearrangement in this case does not modify the operation of the device because main function of the device will be determined by the functional element involving main function of the device will be determined by a functional element with specific structure, physics and optical function (see e.g. paragraphs [29, 31,50]). The benefits of this modification include providing adhesion between the two layers and providing that the optical structures may be formed or supported by the substrate (see paragraphs [31, 50, 6,29]).
Regarding claim 37, Keshavarz teaches (see Figs. 1-13) further comprising a protective layer, the polymer layer being arranged between the substrate and the protective layer i.e. as additional protective layers over plastic sheet, resin and thin metallic, dielectric layer, paragraphs [31, 47], claim 8).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 30 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the limitations of the independent claims, in such a manner that a rejection under 35 USC 102 or 103 would be improper.
Regarding claim 5, Keshavarz teaches (see Figs. 1-13) that the metasurface patterns of each display pixel vary in a first manner for the frame pixels so that the different images correspond to different frames in an animation of an object for different viewing directions in a first plane (i.e. as plasmonic surface pattern of nano-structures/texture(s) of micro-structure/pixels may vary to show frames amination of object/scene in one plane, e.g. paragraphs [37-39, 40,45-49] Figs. 2-7, 9-13), and
the metasurface patterns of each display pixel vary in a second manner for the frame pixels so that the different images correspond to different spatial views of the object for different viewing directions (i.e. as plasmonic surface pattern of nano-structures/texture(s) of micro-structure/pixels may vary to show two perspectives of a single scene/object, see e.g. paragraphs [36-39, 40,45-49] Figs. 2-7, 9-13).
However, regarding claim 5, the prior art of Keshavarz taken either singly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest such a display device including the specific arrangement where frame pixels along the animation arc present temporal animation progression and frame pixels perpendicular to the animation arc present parallax-only spatial views, and in combination with all other claimed limitations of claim 5, intervening claim 2 and base claim 1.
Similarly, regarding claim 30, the prior art of Keshavarz taken either singly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest such a display device including the specific arrangement where movement of a viewer's viewing direction along the animation path causes the displayed animation to progress in time, and movement of the viewer's viewing direction in a direction transverse to the animation path changes a parallax view without changing the animation time, and in combination with all other claimed limitations of base claim 27.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed in the Remarks dated 09/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, Applicant argues on pages 9-10, that the cited prior art of Keshavarz does not disclose the new limitations in claim 1, and similarly in new claim 27, namely that (1) “the frame pixels are arranged such that projecting viewing directions of the frame pixels onto a plane defines an animation arc along which an animation is displayed”, arguing that the Keshavarz does not disclose structural organizational approach of claim 1 (and 27), as asserting that multiple faces or multiple viewing directions in Keshavarz that can display different images or even frames of an animation at different viewing angles do not result in the assigning animation progression according to projections of frame-pixel viewing directions onto an animation-arc plane in the specific manner claimed. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. With respect to the above issue (1), as noted in the rejections above, the cite prior art of Keshavarz teaches all limitations of claim 1 (and 27), as Keshavarz teaches (see Figs. 1-13) a display comprising a two-dimensional array of display pixels (i.e. display device using 2-dimensional array of micro-structures/pixels and nano-structures formed conformally thereon that operate to generate optical effects, see abstract, paragraphs [31-41,43-49],e.g. Figs. 2-13), the display comprising:
a substrate extending in a plane (i.e. substrate e.g. 106, 128,134,138, generally any structure on which optical structures, paragraphs [31,36,40,43-44], Figs. 2-8);
a polymer layer supported by the substrate (i.e. as micro- and nano-structures after fabrication on a mold casted on a different substrate, such as a plastic sheet, resin, paragraphs [47-49]), the polymer layer having a surface patterned to correspond to the two-dimensional array of display pixels (2-dimensional array of micro-structures/pixels, paragraphs [34, 37-39,42-43,47], Figs. 10-13), a shape of the surface within each display pixel varying with respect to the plane (i.e. as surface of microstructures/pixels varies with respect to plane of substrate, e.g. 106, 128,134,138 as depicted Figs. 2-9,13), so that different areas of each display pixel reflect light incident on the display from a common direction into different viewing angles (i.e. as reflection of the incident light from the two or more faces e.g. 112, 114, 118, 120, 122, of the pyramids reveals content of image #1 viewable by observer #1, and content of image #2 viewable by observer #2, etc e.g. paragraphs [37-38], e.g. Figs. 4-7), each of the different areas corresponding to a respective frame pixel (i.e. as each of areas of micro-structure e.g. 102,104, with plasmonic pixel(s) e.g. angled at different directions as e.g. faces 112, 114, 118, 120, 122, where each such high face density micro-surface holds a frame of an animation, paragraphs [33-43,45-49] Figs. 2-7, 9-13), the surface at each of the different areas comprising a respective metasurface pattern (i.e. as plasmonic surface pattern e.g. nano-structures/texture(s) e.g. 108,110 , paragraphs [31-40,45-49] Figs. 2-7, 9-13); and
a layer of a first material on the surface of the polymer layer, the first material being different from a material composing the polymer layer (i.e. metal, metallic layer e.g. aluminum, or dielectric, paragraphs [33,41,47]), the metasurface patterns and the layer of the first material being configured so that the reflected light is spectrally filtered by each frame pixel (i.e. as micro-structures with plurality of nano-structures conformal to micro-structures e.g. faces 112-122, to create structural colors from incident light, i.e. paragraphs [11,34,36-38,40-43,47]), the metasurface patterns for different frame pixels of at least some of the display pixels varying so that each of the at least some of the display pixels reflect differently colored light into the different viewing angles (i.e. as plasmonic surface pixel pattern, with faces angled at different directions e.g. faces 112, 114, 118, 120, 122, allow for images #1 and #2, #3 etc., may be uniformly patterned with two different types of plasmonic structures, such that device displays plasmonic color #1 which switches to plasmonic color #2, #3, or animation frame, etc. e.g. paragraphs [37,11,34,36,39,40-43,47]),
wherein the frame pixels are arranged such that projecting viewing directions of the frame pixels onto a plane defines an animation arc along which an animation is displayed (i.e. as best understood, given the structures of plasmonic pixel(s) e.g. arranges and angled at different directions as e.g. angled plasmonic surface faces 112, 114, 118, 120, 122 in discrete form showing animation, and in high density form as curved three-dimensional shape to displaying smooth animation, for the positions along which animations are viewed by observer(s) in positions 1, 2, 3, or more for smooth animation, form an arc shape over display device which is in observation/viewing plane over display device, see e.g. Fig. 5, or an arc formed by tilting sample display device, paragraphs [37-43,45-49], as depicted in Figs. 2-7, 9-13; it is further noted that because the structure of the claimed system, as identified above and in the original action, is the same as that claimed, it must inherently perform the same function of animation arc along which an animation is intended to be viewed. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (The absence of a disclosure in a prior art reference relating to function did not defeat the Board’s finding of anticipation of claimed apparatus because the limitations at issue were found to be inherent in the prior art reference); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2114.
Specifically, Keshavarz teaches the metasurface patterns and the layer of the first material being configured so that the reflected light is spectrally filtered by each frame pixel (i.e. as micro-structures with plurality of nano-structures conformal to micro-structures e.g. faces 112-122, to create structural colors from incident light, i.e. paragraphs [11,34,36-38,40-43,47]), the metasurface patterns for different frame pixels of at least some of the display pixels varying so that each of the at least some of the display pixels reflect differently colored light into the different viewing angles (i.e. as plasmonic surface pixel pattern, with faces angled at different directions e.g. faces 112, 114, 118, 120, 122, allow for images #1 and #2, #3 etc., may be uniformly patterned with two different types of plasmonic structures, such that device displays plasmonic color #1 which switches to plasmonic color #2, #3, or animation frame, etc. (e.g. paragraphs [37,11,34,36,39,40-43,47]), meaning that as the observer moves along the viewing space forming an arc over the sample surface with plasmonic surface pixel pattern, e.g. as in Fig. 5, the display device displays animation by displaying animation frames according to differently angled plasmonic surfaces.
Keshavarz further teaches that the frame pixels are arranged such that projecting viewing directions of the frame pixels onto a plane defines an animation arc along which an animation is displayed (i.e. as best understood, given the structures of plasmonic pixel(s) e.g. arranges and angled at different directions as e.g. angled plasmonic surface faces 112, 114, 118, 120, 122 in discrete form showing animation, and in high density form as curved three-dimensional shape to displaying smooth animation, for the positions along which animations are viewed by observer(s) in positions 1, 2, 3, or more for smooth animation, form an arc over display device see e.g. Fig. 5, or an arc formed by tilting sample display device, paragraphs [37-43,45-49], as depicted in Figs. 2-7, 9-13. This interpretation is consistent with instant application, that characterizes that the arc along which an animation is intended to be viewed is termed an animation arc (paragraph [100] of instant application). Further, as noted that because the structure of the claimed system, as identified above and in the original action, is the same as that claimed, it must inherently perform the same function of animation arc along which an animation is intended to be viewed. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (The absence of a disclosure in a prior art reference relating to function did not defeat the Board’s finding of anticipation of claimed apparatus because the limitations at issue were found to be inherent in the prior art reference); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2114.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that device can display different frames of an animation at different viewing angles without assigning animation progression according to projections of frame-pixel viewing directions onto an animation-arc plane, or additional geometric relationship) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
It is noted that "[t]he use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968))." MPEP §2123.
Therefore, the cited prior art of Keshavarz teaches all limitations of claim 1 (and 27) including the limitations raised under issue (1) above.
No additional substantial arguments were presented after page 9 of the Remarks dated 09/15/2026.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIN PICHLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4015. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am -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, Ricky L Mack can be reached at (571)272-2333. 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.
/MARIN PICHLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
