`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
The instant application having Application No. 18858059 filed on 10/18/2024 is presented for examination by the examiner.
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention group I, claim 1-13 in the reply filed on 06/12/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 14-26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention groups II and III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/12/2026.
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 1-10 and 12-13 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 faces of the pyramids reveals content of image #1 viewable by observer #1, and content of image #2 viewable by observer #2, 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), paragraphs [33-40,45-49] 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 to create structural colors from incident light, i.e. paragraphs [11,34,36-37,40-43,47]), 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 allow for images #1 and #2 maybe uniformly patterned with two different types of plasmonic structures, such that device displays plasmonic color #1 which switches to plasmonic color #2, e.g. paragraphs [37,11,34,36,40-43,47]).
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 of paragraphs [37-39, 40,45-49] Figs. 2-7, 9-13).
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).
.
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 claim 8, 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]).
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]).
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.
Claim 11 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]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Khoshnegar, US 20250147209 A1 also discloses features of instant invention (see e.g. Figs. 2-12 and their descriptions).
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, Thomas K Pham can be reached at (571)272-3689. 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
Prosecution Insights