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 .
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 1-6, 8-9, 11-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (US 2004/0201815) in view of Ge et al. (US 2014/0307207), Uchida et al. (US 2020/0019004) and Saitoh et al. (US 2024/0178236).
As to claims 1 and 12, Yamamoto discloses in figure 6, a liquid crystal display comprising: a first substrate 11; a second substrate 21; a plurality of photo spacers 31 formed on the second substrate, wherein at least a photo spacer 31B of the plurality of photo spacers overlays at least one blue subpixel PXB of a plurality of blue subpixels and at least an additional photo spacer 31R of the plurality of photo spacers overlays at least one red subpixel PXR of a plurality of red subpixels; and a liquid crystal material 300 in regions between the first substrate and the second substrate.
Yamamoto does not disclose a plurality of sub-spacers formed on the first substrate, each sub-spacer of the plurality of sub-spacers configured to support a corresponding photo spacer of the plurality of photo spacers. Ge discloses in figure 6, a spacer structure 100, comprising a plurality of photo spacers 102 formed on the second substrate and a plurality of sub-spacers 104 formed on the first substrate, wherein each sub-spacer of the plurality of sub-spacers is configured to support a corresponding photo spacer of the plurality of photo spacers. See paragraph [0050]. Ge further discloses in paragraph [0055], that the sub-spacers 104 may be used to prevent scratches in the surfaces of the display layers. 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 Yamamoto by providing the spacer structure of Ge, comprising a plurality of photo spacers formed on the second substrate and a plurality of sub-spacers formed on the first substrate, wherein each sub-spacer of the plurality of sub-spacers is configured to support a corresponding photo spacer of the plurality of photo spacers, in order to prevent scratches in the surfaces of the display layers.
Yamamoto does not disclose wherein an aperture ratio of the at least one red subpixel is greater than an aperture ratio of the at least one blue subpixel. Uchida discloses in paragraph [0107], making the aperture ratio of the blue subpixels less than the aperture ratio of the red subpixels and the green subpixels in order to prevent the displayed color from becoming yellowish (color shift in the yellow direction). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Yamamoto by making the aperture ratio of the blue subpixels less than the aperture ratio of the red subpixels and the green subpixels in order to prevent the displayed color from becoming yellowish (color shift in the yellow direction). This would have resulted in the aperture ratio of the at least one red subpixel being greater than an aperture ratio of the at least one blue subpixel.
Yamamoto does not disclose wherein a resolution of the LCD is greater than 800 pixels per inch. Saitoh discloses in paragraph [0056] that a head mounted display requires a liquid crystal panel having extremely high resolution, for example in the range of 800 pixels per inch (PPI) to about 1800 pixels per inch (PPI). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Yamamoto wherein a resolution of the LCD is greater than 800 pixels per inch in order to adapt the liquid crystal display for use in a head mounted display.
As to claims 2 and 13, Yamamoto in view of Ge, Uchida and Saitoh discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claims 1 and 12. Ge further discloses in figure 6, wherein a lateral size of each photo spacer 102 of the plurality of photo spacers is smaller than a lateral size of a corresponding sub-spacer 104 of the plurality of photo spacers.
As to claim 3 and 14, Yamamoto in view of Ge, Uchida and Saitoh discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claims 2 and 13. Ge further discloses in figure 6, wherein the lateral size of each photo spacer 102 of the plurality of photo spacers is at least 25% smaller than the lateral size of the corresponding sub-spacer 104 of the plurality of photo spacers.
As to claims 4 and 15, Yamamoto in view of Ge, Uchida and Saitoh discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claims 1 and 12. Ge further discloses in figure 6, wherein a height of each photo spacer 102 of the plurality of photo spacers is larger than a height of a corresponding sub-spacer 104 of the plurality of photo spacers.
As to claims 5 and 16, Yamamoto in view of Ge, Uchida and Saitoh discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claims 4 and 15. Ge further discloses in figure 6, wherein the height of each photo spacer 102 of the plurality of photo spacers is at least 25% larger than the height of the corresponding sub-spacer 104 of the plurality of photo spacers.
As to claims 6 and 17, Yamamoto in view of Ge, Uchida and Saitoh discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claims 1 and 12. Ge further discloses in figure 6, wherein each photo spacer 102 of the plurality of photo spacers has a flat surface that contacts a corresponding sub-spacer 104 of the plurality of sub-spacers, and the corresponding sub-spacer 104 has a flat surface that contacts the photo spacer 102.
As to claims 8 and 19, Yamamoto in view of Ge, Uchida and Saitoh discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claims 1 and 12. Saitoh further discloses in paragraph [0056] that a liquid crystal display panel adapted for use in a head mounted display may have a resolution as high as 1800 pixels per inch (PPI).
As to claim 9, Yamamoto in view of Ge, Uchida and Saitoh discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 1. The device of Yamamoto as modified by Saitoh is a liquid crystal display adapted for use in a head mounted display device as discussed above regarding claim 1. Saitoh further discloses in figure 2, a lens unit 10RE (display optics) configured to project images displayed by the LCD 10 to a user’s eye 10EY. See paragraph [0054]. Accordingly, the user can visually recognize an enlarged image that is a virtual image displayed on the virtual display 10VD having a screen size (several tens of inches to several hundreds of inches) much larger than a screen size (several inches) of the liquid crystal display device 10. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Yamamoto by providing a lens unit (display optics) configured to project images displayed by the LCD to a user’s eye as disclosed by Saitoh in order to allow the user to see virtual images that are much larger than the images displayed by the LCD.
As to claim 11, Yamamoto in view of Ge, Uchida and Saitoh discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 1. Furthermore, the liquid crystal material of Yamamoto inherently has a birefringence greater than a minimum value necessary to enable the liquid crystal material to modulate light.
Claims 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (US 2004/0201815) in view of Ge et al. (US 2014/0307207), Uchida et al. (US 2020/0019004) and Saitoh et al. (US 2024/0178236) as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Xin et al. (US 2025/0231452).
Yamamoto in view of Ge, Uchida and Saitoh discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claims 1 and 12, but does not disclose wherein a distance between the first substrate and the second substrate is less than 2 µm. However, this was a conventional cell gap for a liquid crystal panel as evidenced by Xin. Xin discloses in paragraph [0081], a liquid crystal display panel having a cell gap between 1.4 and 2 µm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Yamamoto wherein a distance between the first substrate and the second substrate is less than 2 µm as disclosed by Xin because conventional structures were known to be cost effective and reliable.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (US 2004/0201815) in view of Ge et al. (US 2014/0307207), Uchida et al. (US 2020/0019004) and Saitoh et al. (US 2024/0178236) as applied to claims 9 and 9 and 12 above, and further in view of Jiang et al. (US 2023/0034562).
Yamamoto in view of Ge, Uchida and Saitoh discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claims 9 and 12, but does not disclose wherein a spectral radiance of the LCD is selected based on a spectral transmittance curve of the display optics to achieve a target color gamut for the near-eye display. Jiang discloses in paragraph [0021], optimizing optical properties such as color gamut for each near eye display based on user eye parameters. Different users get different and individualized initial recommended settings, which auto-compensate and accommodate each user's unique eye parameters, thereby improving user experience. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Yamamoto wherein a spectral radiance of the LCD is selected based on a spectral transmittance curve of the display optics to achieve a target color gamut for the near-eye display, in order to optimize the color gamut based on user eye parameters and thereby improve user experience as taught by Jiang.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 12 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection. The new ground of rejection is based on applying the newly cited prior art of Yamamoto (US 2004/0201815) as the primary reference, in combination with the previously cited prior art of Ge et al. (US 2014/0307207) and Saitoh et al. (US 2024/0178236) and the newly cited prior art of Uchida et al. (US 2020/0019004).
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 David Chung whose telephone number is (571)272-2288. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 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 Caley can be reached at (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 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.
/DAVID Y CHUNG/Examiner, Art Unit 2871