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 .
Summary of the Claims
The present application (18/897,860) was filed on September 26, 2024 as a continuation of PCT/KR2024/013905 filed on September 12, 2024 and claims priority to KR 10-2023-0124836 filed on September 19, 2023. Claims 1-20 are pending. 1 and 15 are the independent claims.
References and Documents Cited in this Action
Shestak (US 2006/0291050 A1)
Kim (KR 2019-0019245 A; see the English-language machine translation mailed with this action)
Gao (US 7,993,016 B2)
Summary of Rejections and Objections in this Action
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claims 1-8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shestak.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shestak in view of Kim.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shestak in view of Gao.
Claims 9, 10, and 15-20 contain allowable subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites “a second quarter-wave plate” but depends on claim 1 and does not previously recite a “first” quarter-wave plate. The claim is indefinite because it is unclear if the claimed invention includes two quarter-wave plates.
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 1-8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shestak.
Regarding independent claim 1, Shestak discloses a display system (Figure 2 and 6) comprising:
an electronic device 200 including a plurality of projectors 205 and 210 emitting a light for providing a three-dimensional (3D) image (Figure 6; paragraphs [0057]-[0058]); and
a screen 120 comprising a geometric phase layer (i.e., birefringence device 124) and a retroreflection layer (i.e., diffuser 132), the geometric phase layer refracts light incident from the plurality of projectors in different directions according to a polarization of the light and the retroreflection layer reflects light incident from the geometric phase layer in an opposite direction to an incident direction (Figure 2; paragraphs [0039]-[0040] and ,
wherein, based on the polarization of the light emitted from the plurality of projectors being a first polarization from among a right-circularly polarization and a left-circularly polarization, the emitted light is refracted in a first direction by the geometric phase layer 124, the light refracted in the first direction is reflected in an opposite direction to the first direction by the retroreflection layer 132, and the reflected light is refracted in a second direction toward a predetermined location corresponding to both eyes of a user by the geometric phase layer 124 (Figures 5 and 6; paragraphs [0054]-[0057]), and
wherein, based on the polarization of the light emitted from the plurality of projectors being a second polarization, the emitted light is refracted in a third direction different from the first direction by the geometric phase layer 124, the light refracted in the third direction is reflected in an opposite direction to the third direction by the retroreflection layer 132, and the reflected light is refracted in a fourth direction different from the second direction by the geometric phase layer 124 (Figures 5 and 6; paragraphs [0054]-[0057]).
Regarding claim 2, Shestak discloses that based on the polarization of the light emitted from the plurality of projectors being the first polarization, the emitted light is refracted in the first direction as it is changed to the second polarization by the geometric phase layer 124, the light refracted in the first direction is reflected in the opposite direction to the first direction as it is changed to the first polarization by the retroreflection layer 132, and the reflected light is refracted in the second direction toward the predetermined location corresponding to both eyes of the user as it is changed to the second polarization by the geometric phase layer 124 (Figures 5 and 6; paragraphs [0054]-[0057]), and
wherein, based on the polarization of the light emitted from the plurality of projectors being the second polarization, the emitted light is refracted in the third direction as it is changed to the first polarization by the geometric phase layer 124, the light refracted in the third direction is reflected in the opposite direction to the third direction as it is changed to the second polarization by the retroreflection layer 132, and the reflected light is refracted in the fourth direction as it is changed to the first polarization by the geometric phase layer 124 (Figures 5 and 6; paragraphs [0054]-[0057]).
Regarding claim 3, Shestak discloses that the electronic device 200 further comprises: a polarizer (i.e., polarization conversion device 215) that filters light of the second polarization emitted from the plurality of projectors (Figure 6; paragraph [0057]).
Regarding claim 4, Shestak discloses that the screen further comprises: a first quarter-wave plate (QWP) 126 that is arranged between the geometric phase layer and the retroreflection layer and adjusts the polarization of the light incident from the retroreflection layer, wherein, based on the polarization of light incident into the first quarter-wave plate 126 after being reflected by the retroreflection layer 132 being the second polarization, the polarization of the light incident into the first quarter-wave plate is adjusted to the first polarization, and wherein light incident into the geometric phase layer 124 after being adjusted to the first polarization by the first quarter-wave plate is refracted in a fifth direction similar to the second direction (Figures 2 and 5; paragraphs [0039] and [0055]).
Regarding claim 5, as well as the claim may be understood with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112 as discussed above, Shestak discloses that the screen further comprises a quarter-wave plate 126 that is arranged between the geometric phase layer 124 and the retroreflection layer 132 and adjusts the polarization of the light incident from the geometric phase layer, wherein, based on the polarization of light incident into the quarter-wave plate 126 after being refracted by the geometric phase layer 124 being the first polarization, the polarization of the light incident into the quarter-wave plate 126 is adjusted to the second polarization, wherein the light adjusted to the second polarization by the quarter-wave plate 126 is reflected in the opposite direction to the third direction as it is adjusted to the first polarization by the retroreflection layer 132, and wherein the light reflected in the opposite direction to the third direction by the retroreflection layer 132 is refracted in a fifth direction similar to the second direction as it is adjusted to the second polarization by the geometric phase layer 124 (Figures 2 and 5; paragraphs [0039] and [0055]).
Regarding claim 6, Shestak discloses that the first direction, the second direction, the third direction, and the fourth direction are set based on at least one of a form, a size, or an interval of a pattern formed on the geometric phase layer 124, at least in the sense that Shestak discloses that the form of the geometric phase layer 124 affects the directions of light as it interacts with the geometric phase layer 124 (Figure 5; paragraph [0055])
Regarding claim 7, Shestak discloses that the predetermined location corresponds to an eyebox that is an area corresponding to both eyes of the user (Figure 6), and wherein a location, a size, and a form of the eyebox are set based on at least one of a focal distance of a lens 220 included in the electronic device, an optical aberration of the lens, or a size of an aperture included in the electronic device, at least in the sense that Shestak discloses that lens 220 and the eyebox are positioned such that lens 220 properly projects a focused image to the eyes of the user via the screen (Figures 5 and 6; paragraphs [0055]-[0057]).
Regarding claim 8, Shestak discloses that the location, the size, and the form of the eyebox are further set based on at least one of a form, a size, or an interval of a pattern formed on the retroreflection layer 132, at least in the sense that Shestak discloses that retroreflection layer 132 is configured such that a focused image is presented to the eyes of the user via retroreflection layer 132 (Figures 5 and 6; paragraphs [0055]-[0057]).
Regarding claim 13, Shestak discloses that the plurality of projectors comprises: a first projector 210 that emits a light for providing to a left eye of a first user; and a second projector 205 that emits a light for providing to a right eye of the first user (Figure 6; paragraph [0057]).
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 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shestak in view of Kim.
Since Kim is in Korean, please see the English-language machine translation mailed with this action.
Regarding claim 11, Shestak discloses a display system as discussed above with regard to claim 1 but does not further disclose the screen is arranged on at least two surfaces from among a front surface, a left side surface, a right side surface, a ceiling surface, and a bottom surface of the electronic device. However, Kim teaches a system that is related to the one disclosed by Shestak, including emitting light from an electronic device including projectors 210 and 220 for providing a three-dimensional (3D) image on a retro-reflective screen 300 (Figures 1 and 3). Kim further teaches that the screen 300 is arranged on at least two surfaces from among a front surface, a left side surface, a right side surface, a ceiling surface, and a bottom surface of the electronic device (e.g., screen 300 is arranged on surfaces all around the electronic device, including a front surface and a ceiling surface; Figure 5; paragraph [0058]). Regarding claim 11, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the screen on multiple surfaces as taught by Kim in the system disclosed by Shestak in order to advantageously display a large, immersive image that surrounds the user and “may be used in various ways such as aircraft training, car training, sports game training, games, etc.” (Kim, paragraph [0058]).
Regarding claim 12, Shestak discloses a display system as discussed above with regard to claim 1 but does not further disclose the electronic device is configured to: based on receiving a request for providing a two-dimensional (2D) image, emit a light of a higher luminance than in a case of providing the 3D image. However, again Kim teaches a system that is related to the one disclosed by Shestak, including emitting light from an electronic device including projectors 210 and 220 for providing a three-dimensional (3D) image on a retro-reflective screen 300 (Figures 1 and 3). Kim further teaches based on receiving a request for providing a two-dimensional (2D) image, emit a light of a higher luminance than in a case of providing the 3D image (paragraph [0038]). Regarding claim 12, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to emit a light of a higher luminance based on receiving a request for providing a two-dimensional (2D) image as taught by Kim (by using multiple projectors) in the system disclosed by Shestak in order to advantageously display a 2D image “clearly with a large screen and an extra large screen” (Kim, paragraph [0038]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shestak in view of Gao.
Regarding claim 14, Shestak discloses a display system as discussed above with regard to claim 1 but does not further disclose an external device including a plurality of external projectors arranged in a different location from the electronic device. However, Gao teaches a system that is related to the disclosed by Shestak, including emitting light from projectors for providing a three-dimensional (3D) image on a retro-reflective screen 505 (Figure 5). Gao further teaches an external device including a plurality of external projectors 501 that emit a light corresponding to the 3D image, wherein the plurality of external projectors include a first projector that emits a light for providing to a left eye of a second user and a second projector that emits a light for providing to a right eye of the second user, and wherein the external device is arranged in a different location from an electronic device including additional projectors (Figure 5; column 9, lines 65-67; column 10, lines 1-67). Regarding claim 14, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include an external device including a plurality of external projectors as taught by Gao in the display system disclosed by Shestak in order to advantageously brighten the image and expand the viewing window (Gao, column 10, lines 28-67).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-20 are allowed. Claims 9 and 10 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art does not specifically disclose or fairly suggest a display system including the combination of all of the elements, steps, and limitations recited in claims 9, 10, and 15-20 (including all of the limitations of any respective parent claims), particularly wherein:
the system further comprises a display device that displays an image, wherein the screen is arranged on at least some areas of a display included in the display device (e.g., claims 9 and 10); or
the display includes a screen that is arranged in at least some areas of the display and includes a geometric phase layer and a retroreflection layer in combination with the other elements and limitations (e.g., claims 15-20).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christina Leung at telephone number (571) 272-3023. If attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patricia Engle can be reached at (571) 272-6660.
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 https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/interview-practice.
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.
/CHRISTINA Y. LEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3991
Prosecution Insights