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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-14 are currently pending in the present application. Claims 1 and 11 are currently amended; claims 2-10 are previously presented; and claims 12-14 are newly added. The amendment dated September 4, 2026 has been entered into the record.
Claims 1-11 were previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The rejection is now withdrawn as the applicant has filed a terminal disclaimer with respect to the application.
Response to Arguments
Regarding claim 1, the applicant argues that “the gapless arrangement is not merely intended to improve generic optical transmission. Rather, it is specifically used to ensure that substantially all illumination light participates in the polarization-recycling process” and “The mere existence of gapless microlenses in an unrelated optical system does not establish that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Saito's recycler in the specific manner claimed without resorting to hindsight reconstruction” (Remarks, Pages 6-7).
In response to applicant’s arguments regarding different advantages of using microlenses without gaps, the examiner considers the fact that applicant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). See also MPEP 2145.
In response to applicant’s argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, the examiner considers “[a]ny judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In the instant case, Saito discloses a display device (Para. [0030]) comprising a display panel (Para. [0030]) for linearly polarized light (Para. [0033]) comprising: a light source (14) for unpolarized light (Para. [0059]), and a polarization recycler (44, 42, 24, 22, 32, 34), the polarization recycler comprising: a microlens arrangement (42 comprising 44; Para. [0100]); a perforated mask (24; Para. [0039]) with a reflective embodiment (22; Para. [0047]) on its side facing away from the microlens arrangement; a retarder (32; Para. [0063] “the λ/4 film 32”); and a reflective polarizer (34), wherein a microlens has been known to one of ordinary person for a few decades in the art and as taught by at least Sato and Eble, where a microlens inherently has dimensions (e.g., a radius, a height and an interval) to be adjusted based on the pixel dimension in a device so as to propagate light. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to use known microlenses including a microlens without gaps to maximize the transmission of the microlens substrate. As such applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Regarding claim 7, the applicant argues that “The Examiner has identified no teaching in Saito of such an integrated support architecture and no teaching that the support is used to maintain fixed optical alignment among polarization-recycling components” (Remarks, Pages 7-8).
The examiner considers Saito teaches the perforated mask and either the retarder or both the retarder and the reflective polarizer are arranged at a distance from one another (Fig. 4) and light is propagating therebetween (see L in Fig. 1; Para. [0034]). Because two optical members are arranged at a distance from one another and light should be able to propagate therebetween, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date, to have a transparent support with two substantially parallel main faces arranged at a distance from one another, wherein the perforated mask is arranged on one main face thereof, and wherein either the retarder or both the retarder and the reflective polarizer are arranged on the other main face thereof, for the purpose of forming a display device (Saito: Para. [0033]-[0034]).
Regarding claim 9, the applicant argues that "The Examiner has not identified any teaching in Tanabe that decentration is used to create Applicant's beam-deflection and beam-steering functionality within a polarization recycler. Accordingly, claim 9 is patentable over the cited combination” (Remarks, Pages 8-9).
The examiner notes that beam-steering functionality is not recited in claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, the applicant further argues that “Thus, the irregular structure is not merely used to reduce moiré. Rather, it cooperates with corresponding microlenses to create variable angular distributions while preserving polarization-recycling” (Remarks, Pages 9-10).
In response to applicant’s arguments regarding different advantages, the examiner considers the fact that applicant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). See also MPEP 2145.
Regarding newly added claims 12 and 13, the applicant argues that “Neither Saito, Eble, Tanabe, nor Hyobu teaches irregularly distributed microlenses having irregular triangular aperture areas, the same optical properties across such irregularly distributed microlenses, or correspondence between the irregular microlens distribution and the irregular hole structure” (Remarks, Page 10).
Applicant's arguments with respect to the newly added claims 12 and 13 have been fully considered, but are moot in light of the new rejection set forth below. The new rejection cites Lou et al. (US 20220373814).
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 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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito (US 20180299730) of record, in view of Eble (US 20200084850) of record.
Regarding claim 1, Saito discloses a display device (Para. [0030] “a liquid crystal display device (LCD)”) comprising a display panel (Para. [0030] “a liquid crystal panel”) for linearly polarized light (Para. [0033]), comprising:
a light source (14 in Fig. 4) for unpolarized light (Para. [0059] “LED”), and a polarization recycler (44, 42, 24, 22, 32, 34), the polarization recycler comprising:
a microlens arrangement (42 comprising 44; Para. [0100]);
a perforated mask (24; Para. [0039]) with a reflective embodiment (22; Para. [0047] “the emission-side reflection surface 22 is a specular reflection surface”) on its side facing away from the microlens arrangement;
a retarder (32; Para. [0063] “the λ/4 film 32”); and
a reflective polarizer (34; Para. [0063] “the linearly polarized light reflection film 34”),
Saito does not explicitly disclose microlenses of the microlens arrangement are arranged without gaps.
However, Eble teaches microlenses of a microlens arrangement without gaps (52 on 44 adjoined each other without gaps in Fig. 2; Para. [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the microlens arrangement as disclosed by Saito with the teachings of Eble, wherein microlenses of the microlens arrangement are arranged without gaps, for the purpose of maximizing the transmission of the microlens substrate (Eble: Para. [0053]).
Regarding claim 3, Saito as modified by Eble discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and Saito further discloses wherein the microlens arrangement comprises a main body with two substantially parallel main faces arranged at a distance from one another (see 42 comprising a main body in Fig. 4), the microlenses are arranged on one main face thereof, and the perforated mask is arranged on the other main face thereof (see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 4, Saito as modified by Eble discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and Saito further discloses wherein the perforated mask is arranged in a focal plane of the microlens arrangement (see Para. [0096] teaching 44 converges light on the emission side of 20, thereby indicating 24 is being arranged in a focal plane of 42).
Regarding claim 5, Saito as modified by Eble discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and Saito further discloses wherein the perforated mask is embodied as a reflective coating (Para. [0047] “the emission-side reflection surface 22 is a specular reflection surface”).
Regarding claim 7, Saito as modified by Eble discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Saito does not explicitly disclose further comprising a transparent support with two substantially parallel main faces arranged at a distance from one another, wherein the perforated mask is arranged on one main face thereof, and wherein either the retarder or both the retarder and the reflective polarizer are arranged on the other main face thereof.
However, Saito teaches the perforated mask and either the retarder or both the retarder and the reflective polarizer are arranged at a distance from one another (see Fig. 4), and light is propagating therebetween (see L in Fig. 1; Para. [0034]).
Because two optical members are arranged at a distance from one another and light should be able to propagate therebetween, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the display device as disclosed by Saito, to have a transparent support with two substantially parallel main faces arranged at a distance from one another, wherein the perforated mask is arranged on one main face thereof, and wherein either the retarder or both the retarder and the reflective polarizer are arranged on the other main face thereof, for the purpose of forming a display device (Saito: Para. [0033]-[0034]).
Regarding claim 8, Saito as modified by Eble discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and Saito further discloses wherein the microlenses of the microlens arrangement have a rectangular aperture (Para. [0103]).
Regarding claim 11, Saito as modified by Eble discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and Saito further discloses wherein the reflective polarizer is aligned parallel to the perforated mask (see Fig. 4) such that the reflective light component is rotated in terms of its polarization by two passages through the retarder and is superimposed on the directly transmitted component at the reflective polarizer as a result of the reflection at the perforated mask (see Para. [0063] teaching 32 is the λ/4 film, thereby 32 is capable of rotating the polarization such that the light can pass through the reflective polarizer 34).
Claims 2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito in view of Eble, and in further view of Drinkwater (US 20100085642) of record.
Regarding claim 2, Saito as modified by Eble discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and Saito further discloses wherein the microlenses of the microlens arrangement convert parallel incoming light beams into outgoing light beams with a conical distribution that has a defined opening angle (see Paras. [0096]-[0097] teaching 44, which converts the incoming light by converging it, comprises, for example, a truncated cone shape; the examiner considers a lens having a truncated cone shape creates beams with a conical distribution that has an opening angle based on its corresponding cross section).
Saito does not explicitly disclose the incoming light beams being parallel incoming light beams.
However, Drinkwater teaches known light sources include a light source emitting parallel light beams (see Fig. 17A1-17B1 teaching various incoming light beams for microlenses, including parallel incoming light beams in Fig. 17A1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the display device as disclosed by Saito with the teachings of Drinkwater to have parallel incoming light beams, for the purpose of using light sources to provide light for microlenses based on a real device to be used (Drinkwater: Para. [0160]).
Regarding claim 14, Saito as modified by Eble discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Saito does not explicitly disclose the light source is a collimated light source, and the microlenses focus incident light such that it can pass through the holes, and wherein the light source includes a collimator configured to create a collimated beam of light with parallel light beams.
However, Drinkwater teaches a light source is a collimated light source, and microlenses focus incident light such that it can pass through holes, and wherein the light source includes a collimator configured to create a collimated beam of light with parallel light beams (Fig. 17A1; Paras. [0158]-[0160]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the display device as disclosed by Saito with the teachings of Drinkwater wherein the light source is a collimated light source, and the microlenses focus incident light such that it can pass through the holes, and wherein the light source includes a collimator configured to create a collimated beam of light with parallel light beams, for the purpose of using light sources to provide light for microlenses based on a real device to be used (Drinkwater: Para. [0160]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito in view of Eble, and in further view of Hoffmuller (US 20110045248) of record.
Regarding claim 6, Saito as modified by Eble discloses the limitations of claim 3 above,
Saito does not explicitly disclose the main body is embodied as a foil.
However, Hoffmuller teaches a main body is embodied as a foil (Fig. 4 and Para. [0109]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the forming a microlens arrangement using a foil (Hoffmuller: Para. [0109]) and as conventionally known in the art.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito in view of Eble, and in further view of Tanabe (US 20200310114) of record.
Regarding claim 9, Saito as modified by Eble discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Saito does not explicitly disclose the microlenses of the microlens arrangement are arranged in decentered fashion.
However, Tanabe teaches microlenses of the microlens arrangement are arranged in decentered fashion (Fig. 23 and Para. [0167] “in a random lens array, the displacement of the vertex of each one of the multiple microlenses from the center of the microlens is irregular”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the perforated mask as disclosed by Saito with the teachings of Tanabe, wherein the microlenses of the microlens arrangement are arranged in decentered fashion, for the purpose of improving the visibility of the image (Tanabe: Para. [0168]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito in view of Eble, and in further view of Hyobu (US 20090009861) of record.
Regarding claim 10, Saito as modified by Eble discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and Saito further discloses wherein the perforated mask comprises holes (24a) arranged in a structure, and each of these holes is assigned a microlens (see Fig. 4).
Saito does explicitly disclose the structure being an irregular structure.
However, Hyobu teaches providing holes arranged in an irregular structure (see 81’s in Figs. 10A-10B; see also Fig. 7 teaching the microlens 70 and holes 81).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the perforated mask as disclosed by Saito with the teachings of Hyobu, to have an irregular structure, for the purpose of eliminating moire (Hyobu: Para. [0020]).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito in view of Eble and Hyobu, and in further view of Lou et al. (US 20220373814, hereinafter “Lou”).
Regarding claim 12, Saito as modified by Eble and Hyobu discloses the limitations of claim 10 above.
Saito does not disclose the microlenses are irregularly distributed and each microlens has an irregular triangular aperture area and same optical properties.
However, Lou teaches microlenses are irregularly distributed and each microlens has an irregular triangular aperture area and same optical properties (Fig. 10 and Paras. [0115]-[0117] teaching each unit 2121 irregularly distributed and having an irregular triangular aperture area, where 2121 provides light-homogenizing optical properties).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the microlenses as disclosed by Saito with the teachings of Lou, wherein the microlenses are irregularly distributed and each microlens has an irregular triangular aperture area and same optical properties, for the purpose of using a light-homogenized element for a microlens array (Lou: Para. [0117]).
Regarding claim 13, Saito as modified by Eble, Hyobu and Lou discloses the limitations of claim 12 above.
Saito does not explicitly disclose the irregularly distributed fashion of the microlenses corresponds to the irregular structure of the holes.
However, Hyobu teaches an irregularly distributed fashion of the microlenses corresponds to an irregular structure of the holes (Para. [0068] “even if the through cavities 31 are arranged irregularly, each micro lens of the micro-lens array sheet 11 is preferably made to correspond to each through cavity 31 one by one so that the optical axis of the micro lens matches the center axis of the through cavity 31”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the microlenses as disclosed by Saito with the teachings of Hyobu, wherein the irregularly distributed fashion of the microlenses corresponds to the irregular structure of the holes, for the purpose of matching the optical axis of the microlens with the holes (Hyobu: Para. [0068]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Zhou et al. (US 20160241843) teach a display device comprising a microlens without gaps.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 JONATHAN Y JUNG whose telephone number is (469)295-9076. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 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 H Caley can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JONATHAN Y JUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights