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. 18892628 filed on 09/23/2024 is presented for examination by the examiner.
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. 210, 214.03, acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on application TW 113123920, filed 06/27/2024 (Taiwan).
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
However, to overcome a prior art rejection, applicant(s) must submit a translation of the foreign priority papers in order to perfect the claimed foreign priority because said papers has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. See MPEP § 213.04
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 1-5, 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (hereafter Lee, where attached English language translation is referenced) KR 100618456 B1.
In regard to independent claim 1, Lee teaches (see Figs. 1B-7) a stereoscopic image display device (i.e. Three-dimensional stereoscopic display system using lens array see abstract, disclosure pages 3-12), comprising:
a flat panel display unit having a display surface configured to display a plurality of element images (i.e. image display portion with elementary image area images depicted with arrows on surface of10, e.g. pages 5-12, Figs. 7-6);
a lens array unit disposed at intervals on a side of the display surface and including a plurality of condenser lenses (i.e. as lens array 30 with plurality of elementary condenser lenses, e.g. pages 5-12, Figs. 7-6); and
a directional structure including a plurality of partition walls (partition wall 40 with plurality of walls 40, see abstract, Tech solution, pages 10-12, Fig. 7), wherein the plurality of partition walls are inclined at different angles between the flat panel display unit and the lens array unit, and define a plurality of isolated spaces (as partition walls 40 are inclined at different angles between 10 and 30 and define spaces between walls 40, as depicted in Fig. 7, Tech solution, pages 10-12).
Regarding claim 2, Lee teaches (see Figs. 1B-7) that inclined degrees of the plurality of partition walls gradually increase relative to a central axis of the display surface along an extension direction away from the central axis (as partition walls 40 have inclination that increases from the central axis of 10 surface along the direction away from central axis of 10, as depicted in Fig. 7, Tech solution, pages 10-12).
Regarding claim 3, Lee teaches (see Figs. 1B-7) that the plurality of isolated spaces respectively correspond to the plurality of condenser lenses (as spaces between pl. of walls 40 correspond to each elementary lens in array 30, as depicted in Fig. 7, Tech solution, pages 10-12)), and an end of each of the partition walls close to the lens array unit is directed towards a convex boundary of the corresponding condenser lens near the central axis (i.e. as end of each wall 40 close to 30 us directed towards convex boundary of the corresponding elementary lens of 30 near central axis of 10, as depicted in Fig. 7, Tech solution, pages 10-12), and a virtual extension line of each of the partition walls extending towards the lens array unit crosses the convex boundary (i.e. as virtual extension of each 40 would cross the convex boundary, as depicted in Fig. 7, Tech solution, pages 10-12).
Regarding claim 4, Lee teaches (see Figs. 1B-7) that an end of each of the partition walls close to the flat panel display unit is disposed and abutted against the display surface (as end of each 40 close to 10 abuts 10, see Fig. 7, Tech solution, pages 10-12), and shifted towards the extension direction away from the central axis (i.e. as end of each 40 on 10 side is shifted in extension direction away from central axis of 10, see Fig. 7, Tech solution, pages 10-12), such that the plurality of partition walls form a plurality of shift distances (i.e. as shifting distances of each of 40 at 10 side, Fig. 7, Tech solution, pages 10-12), and the plurality of partition walls respectively have a plurality of included angles with the display surface (i.e. as inclined angles of each 40 with the surface of 10, see Fig. 7, Tech solution, pages 10-12).
Regarding claim 5, Lee teaches (see Figs. 1B-7) that the plurality of shift distances gradually increase from the central axis towards the extension direction (i.e. as the shift distances of each end of 40 at 10 side increases away from central axis of 10, see Fig. 7, Tech solution, pages 10-12), and the plurality of included angles gradually decrease from the central axis towards the extension direction, such that the inclined degrees of the plurality of partition walls gradually increase towards the extension direction (i.e. as included angles of each of 40 decreases away from central axis of 10 in extension direction and the degree of inclination of each of 40 increases from the central axis towards extension direction, see Fig. 7, Tech solution, pages 10-12).
Regarding claim 7, Lee teaches (see Figs. 1B-7) that a width of each of the condenser lenses is defined as a lens pitch (i.e. as width/size of each of element lenses in array 30, pages 3-4,6-9,11, Figs. 5-7), and a width of each of the element images displayed on the display surface is defined as a coding pitch (i.e. as width/size of each basic/elementary image area of 10, pages 3-4,7-9,11, Figs. 5-7), wherein the coding pitch is calculated based on an extended coding pitch algorithm (as element image size and coordinates are calculated given the lens size and characteristics, see conditions 3-6, pages 4, 6-10).
Regarding claim 8, Lee teaches (see Figs. 1B-7) that the coding pitch satisfies formula (1) below:
Coding pitch P’= lens pitch P x (viewing distance Vd +equivalent object distance So)/ viewing distance Vd formula (1) (i.e. or as P’=P*(1+So/Vd), as best understood given the structures of the width/pitch of elemental image on 10, width/pitch of element lens on 30 and expanded size for the increased viewing angle, as functions of the position of aggregate image i.e. viewing distance z and distance g between lens array and the LED display panel 10, see equations 1-2 in pages 2-3, 6-9, for e.g. f/z=1+f/g, and conditions for element image x, y size given lens position and size and distances z and g, equations 3-6, 7-10, pages 2-3, 6-9);
wherein P represents the lens pitch, P’ represents the coding pitch, the viewing distance Vd is a viewing distance for a user, and the equivalent object distance So is a distance calculated by equating one or more medium layers disposed between the lens array unit and the display surface to an air layer (i.e. as sizes positions of element lens in 30 and element image in 10, viewing distance z and distance g between lens array and the LED display panel 10, see equations 1-2, 3-10, pages 2-3, 6-9).
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 6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (hereafter Lee, where attached English language translation is referenced) KR 100618456 B1.
Regarding claim 6, Lee teaches (see Figs. 1B-7) the a wall thickness of each of the partition walls (i.e. as thickness of each of the partition walls 40, see Fig. 7, Tech solution, pages 7-12), but is silent that it is not greater than 300 micrometers. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to adjust and optimize the partition wall thickness (40) to be thin and within the above range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In the current instance, partition wall size and thickness between each lens in lens array and corresponding element image unit of the display is an art-recognized results effective variable in that it serves to remove a flipped image, that is, an unwanted image viewed through a neighboring lens, thereby displaying a stereoscopic image having a significantly increased viewing angle as taught by Lee (see e.g. abstract, pages 3, 10-11). Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize the partition wall thickness size in order to remove the unwanted flipped image, viewed through a neighboring lens, and thereby display
the unobstructed stereoscopic image having a significantly increased viewing angle, and because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.” Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because selecting appropriate thickness for the thin partition wall(s) would not interfere with operation of the stereoscopic display system and is considered routine activity in display system design.
Regarding claim 11, Lee teaches (see Figs. 1B-7) that each of the partition walls has a visible light transmittance and reflectance (i.e. as each of partition walls 40 has given visible light transmission and reflectance), but is silent that it is not greater than 10% and a light reflectance not greater than 40%.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to adjust and optimize the transmission and reflectance of the wall partition(s) (40) to be within the above ranges, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In the current instance, partition wall between each lens in lens array and corresponding element image unit of the display and its optical properties as transmission and reflectance is an art-recognized results effective variable in that it serves to remove a flipped image, that is, an unwanted image viewed through a neighboring lens, thereby displaying a stereoscopic image having a significantly increased viewing angle as taught by Lee (see e.g. abstract, pages 3, 10-11). Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize the partition wall partition transmission and reflectance in the visible range in order to remove the unwanted flipped image, viewed through a neighboring lens, and thereby display the unobstructed stereoscopic image having a significantly increased viewing angle, and because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.” Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because selecting appropriate low reflectance and transmission for the thin partition wall(s) would not interfere with operation of the stereoscopic display system and is considered routine activity in display system design.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is 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.
Claim 10 depends on claim 9 and is objected due to its dependency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yang et al. US 20190222829 A1 also discloses features of instant invention (see Figs. 1-4 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