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 .
Drawings
The drawings with 24 Sheets of Figs. 1-17B received on 9/23/2024 are acknowledged and accepted.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10-14, 18,19, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brug et al (US 2014/0111856 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Brug teaches (fig 1-3, fig 3 embodiment is utilized ,however details from fig 1-2 are relevant to fig 3) an optical device comprising:
an array of hogels (pixel array 315, para 25), each hogel comprising a plurality of sub-hogel elemental images (“Each pixel consists of an array of subpixels (e.g., a LCD shutter array of subpixels), such as the 4x4 subpixel array 315 having 16 subpixels. Each subpixel provides a different view”, para 24),
each sub-hogel elemental image comprising a plurality of monochromatic sub-hogels (“Each subpixel corresponds to a single color elements (e.g., R/G/B) that is separately addressable and that generates light for one view of the multi view display.”, para 20), each monochromatic sub-hogel comprising a plurality of monochromatic directional sub-pixels (“Each subpixel corresponds to a single color elements (e.g., R/G/B) that is separately addressable and that generates light for one view of the multi view display.”, para 20).
Regarding Claim 2, Brug teaches the optical device of claim 1,
wherein each monochromatic sub-hogel has a color-channel specific elemental image (“For example, a light field display 200 may include 1920.times.1080 pixels with each pixel having a corresponding RSL array (with one RSL in the RSL array couples to one subpixel) and a corresponding color filter”, para 23).
Regarding Claim 3, Brug teaches the optical device of claim 1,
wherein each of the monochromatic directional sub-pixels has a size in a nanoscale to several microns range (“a subpixel may be on the order of 200 µm x100 µm in size”, para 25).
Regarding Claim 4, Brug teaches the optical device of claim 1,
wherein the plurality of monochromatic directional sub-pixels are directional (“Each subpixel corresponds to a single color elements (e.g., R/G/B) that is separately addressable and that generates light for one view of the multi view display.”, para 20).
Regarding Claim 5, Brug teaches the optical device of claim 1,
wherein the monochromatic directional sub-pixels in each monochromatic sub-hogel are arrayed in a square configuration, rectangular configuration, or radial configuration (pixels can be in a square configuration, fig 3, para 20-25).
Regarding Claim 6, Brug teaches the optical device of claim 1,
wherein each of the monochromatic directional sub-pixels is individually addressable (“Each subpixel corresponds to a single color element (e.g., R/G/B) that is separately addressable”, para 26).
Regarding Claim 7, Brug teaches the optical device of claim 1,
wherein the plurality of monochromatic sub-hogels comprise at least one monochromatic red sub-hogel, at least one monochromatic green sub-hogel, and at least one monochromatic blue sub-hogel (“.Each subpixel corresponds to a single color element (e.g., R/G/B)”, para 26)
Regarding Claim 8, Brug teaches the optical device of claim 1,
wherein each monochromatic sub-hogel has between 2 and 144 monochromatic directional sub-pixels (“Each pixel (e.g., from 1024x600, 1920x1080, etc., pixels) is formed of an array (e.g., 4x4, 5x5, etc.) of subpixels. Each subpixel corresponds to a single color elements (e.g., R/G/B) that is separately addressable”, para 20).
Regarding Claim 10, Brug teaches the optical device of claim 1,
wherein each monochromatic sub-hogel comprises fewer monochromatic sub-pixels than can individually be discerned by a human eye (“a subpixel may be on the order of 200 µm x100 µm in size”, para 25, this cannot be discerned by an eye).
Regarding Claim 11, Brug teaches the optical device of claim 1, wherein the optical device is a light field display (Light field display 300, para 24).
Regarding Claim 12, Brug teaches the optical device of claim 1,
further comprising a directional optical element (RSL array 320, para 25) positioned in front of the array of hogels (pixel array 315, para 25),
the directional optical element (RSL array 320, para 25) comprising a plurality of color regions such that the plurality of monochromatic sub-pixels in the array of hogels are aligned with color regions of the directional optical element (“a light field display 200 may include 1920.times.1080 pixels with each pixel having a corresponding RSL array (with one RSL in the RSL array couples to one subpixel) and a corresponding color filter.”, para 23) to direct light of a specific color of the monochromatic sub-pixels (fig 3, subpixel array is aligned with RSL array and corresponding color filters).
Regarding Claim 13, Brug teaches the optical device of claim 12,
wherein each color region (“allows the RSLs to be defined for a narrow range of wavelengths corresponding to each color”, para 22) is tailored to the wavelength of the aligned monochromatic sub-pixels.
Regarding Claim 14, Brug teaches the optical device of claim 12, wherein each color region (“allows the RSLs to be defined for a narrow range of wavelengths corresponding to each color”, para 22) has a size larger than a single sub-pixel (as in fig 3).
Regarding Claim 18, Brug teaches the optical device of claim 12,
wherein each color region (“allows the RSLs to be defined for a narrow range of wavelengths corresponding to each color”, para 22) is tailored to a specific wavelength of light.
Regarding Claim 19, Brug teaches the optical device of claim 18,
wherein the specific wavelength of light is red light, blue light, or green light (single color elements (e.g., R/G/B), para 20).
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(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brug et al (US 2014/0111856 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Brug teaches the optical device of claim 1,
each monochromatic directional subpixel may be on the order of 200 µm x100 µm in size”, (para 25).
However, Brug does not teach
wherein each monochromatic directional sub-pixel is less than 10 µm2.
However, 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). Brug teaches that the subpixel size is in a range of values. An increase in the size will collect more light while making the resolution lower and a decrease in the pixel size would make the resolution better while decreasing the light. Therefore, the pixel size is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the claimed pixel size, and one would have chosen the pixel size to be less than 10 µm2 according to a result effective variable balancing the need to improving image quality with brightness of the image. One would have been motivated to have pixel size to be within the claimed range balancing a desired image quality with brightness of the image.
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brug et al (US 2014/0111856 A1) in view of Tsai et al (US 2019/0196068 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Brug teaches the optical device of claim 12.
However, Brug does not teach
wherein the directional optical element comprises at least one of an achromatic metasurface and achromatic metalens.
Brug and Tsai are related as directional optical elements.
Tsai teaches
wherein the directional optical element comprises at least one of an achromatic metasurface and achromatic metalens (metalens, para 50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the directional optical element of Brug to include the metalens of Tsai for the purpose of tailoring light properties at subwavelength resolution and for flat components (para 4).
Regarding Claim 16, Brug teaches the optical device of claim 12.
However, Brug does not teach
wherein the directional optical element is a geometric metasurface, Pancharatnam-Berry metasurface, inverse design metasurface, dispersive phase compensating metasurface, or combination thereof.
Brug and Tsai are related as directional optical elements.
Tsai teaches
wherein the directional optical element (metalens, para 50) is a geometric metasurface, Pancharatnam-Berry metasurface, inverse design metasurface, dispersive phase compensating metasurface, or combination thereof (Pancharatnam Berry phase, para 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the directional optical element of Brug to include the metasurface of Tsai for the purpose of tailoring light properties at subwavelength resolution and for flat components (para 4).
Regarding Claim 17, Brug teaches the optical device of claim 12
However, Brug does not teach
wherein the directional optical element comprises nanostructures.
Brug and Tsai are related as directional optical elements.
Tsai teaches
wherein the directional optical element (metalens 1, para 50) comprises nanostructures (nanostructures 11, para 50)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the directional optical element of Brug to include the nanostructures of Tsai for the purpose of tailoring light properties at subwavelength resolution and for flat components (para 4).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
He et al (US 2019/0335165 A1) teaches a light field display with an array of hogels.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JYOTSNA V DABBI whose telephone number is (571)270-3270. The examiner can normally be reached M-Fri: 9:00am-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, STEPHONE ALLEN can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/JYOTSNA V DABBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 8/6/2026
Prosecution Insights