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 § 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) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the US patent application publication by Yun et al (US 2009/0262418 A1).
Yun et al, teaches with respect to claim 1, a three-dimensional display device, serves as the stereoscopic image display device, that is comprised of a display panel (30, Figures 1 and 5), and a plurality of lenses or lenticular sheet (110a) disposed on the display panel, wherein the display panel includes a plurality of sub-unit pixel groups, each of the sub-unit pixel groups including a first pixel, a second pixel and a third pixel (such as R, G and B pixels), wherein the plurality of sub-unit pixel groups are disposed in a first direction (such as horizontal direction) and a second direction (such as vertical direction), that the second direction intersects the first direction. The first, second and third pixels in each of the plurality of sub-unit pixel groups disposed in the second direction are configured to emit light of different colors, such that R pixel for red color, G pixel for green color and B pixel for blue color, (please see paragraph [0044]). Yun et al further teaches that the plurality of lenses extend in a third direction intersecting the first direction and the second direction, (please see Figure 5).
With regard to claim 2, Yun et al teaches that the second direction (i.e. vertical direction) is at an angle between 0 degrees and 90 degrees with respect to the third direction, i.e. the extension direction of the plurality of lenses, (please see Figure 5). Yun et al teaches that the angle may be 45 degrees.
With regard to claim 3, Yun et al teaches that the first pixel, R, configured to emit a first color, such as red color, the second pixel, G, configured to emit a second color, such as green color and the third pixel, B, configured to emit a third color such as blue color, (please see Figure 3). The plurality of sub-unit groups form a unit having an MxN array in which N pixels are dispose in the first direction and M pixels are disposed in the second direction, (please see Figure 3). The unit includes a first unit having 1x3 array in which the first pixel, second pixel and third pixel are disposed in the first direction, (i.e. R-G-B). The unit also includes a second unit having a 3x3 array in which the first unit (i.e. 1x3 array) is disposed in the second direction, (please see Figure 3, as shown below). The colors to be emitted by the first, second and third pixels of the second unit in the second direction are different.
PNG
media_image1.png
537
566
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 4, Yun et al teaches that the first unit includes a 11 unit in which the first pixel, the second pixel and the third pixel are sequentially disposed in the first direction, (R,G,B). A 12 unit in which the third pixel, the first pixel and the second pixel are sequentially disposed in the first direction, (B,R,G). And a 13 unit in which the second pixel, the third pixel and the first pixel are sequentially disposed in the first direction, (G,B,R), (please see Figure 3).
With regard to claim 5, Yun et al teaches that the second unit has a 3x3 array in which 11 unit, the 12 unit and 13 unit are disposed in the second direction.
This reference has anticipated the claims.
Claim(s) 12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the patent issued to Lee (PN. 7,817,339).
Lee teaches, with regard to claim 12, a three-dimensional display serves as the stereoscopic image display, that is comprised of display panel (110, Figure 4) having a first pixel, R, a second pixel, G, and a third pixel, B, that implement a first color (red), a second color (green) and a third color (blue, please see Figure 6) respectively. The first, second and third pixels form a unit having an MxN array in which N pixels are disposed in a first direction (such as horizontal direction) of the display panel and M pixels are disposed in a second direction (such as vertical direction) of the display panel that intersecting the first direction. The unit includes a first unit having a 1x3 array and a second unit having a 3x3 array wherein in the 3x3 array the first unit is disposed on the second direction. The second unit includes a fifth unit having 3x1 array. The colors configured to be emitted by the first, second and third pixels deposed, (R, G and B), in the fifth unit in the second direction are different.
With regard to claim 15, Lee teaches that the first unit includes a 14 unit (112a) in which the first pixel, R, the second pixel, G, and the third pixel, B, are sequentially disposed in the first direction, (please see Figure 6). A 15 unit (112b) in which the second pixel, G, the third pixel, B, and the first pixel, R, are sequentially disposed in the first direction. And a 16 unit (112c) in which the third pixel, B, the first pixel, R, and the second pixel, G, are sequentially disposed in the first direction. The second unit has 3x3 array in which the unit 14 (112a), the 15 unit (112b) and the 16 unit (112c) are disposed in the second direction.
This reference has therefore anticipated the claim.
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 (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 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) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun et al in view of the US patent application publication by Shigemura (US 2014/0240475 A1).
The stereoscopic image display taught by Yun et al as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claim.
With regard to claim 6, Yun et al teaches that the unit includes second unit having 3x3 array, (please see Figure 3) but it does not teach explicitly to include the cited 21 unit, 22 unit and 23 unit. Shigemura in the same field of endeavor teaches a stereoscopic image display device that is comprised of display panel with pixels (20A, 20B and 20C, Figure 15A and 15B) wherein each pixels comprise 3x3 array of sub-pixels, R, G and B, that each emits a different color. Shigemura teaches that the second unit includes a 21 unit or 20A in which the 11 unit, 12 unit and 13 unit are sequentially disposed in the second direction, (please see Figure 15A). A 22 unit or 20 B in which the 13 unit, 11 unit and the 12 unit are sequentially disposed in the second direction. A 23 unit or 20C in which 12 unit, 13 unit and 11 unit are sequentially disposed in the second direction.
With regard to claim 7, Shigemura teaches that the unit includes a third unit having a 3x9 array in which the 21 unit (20A), the 22 unit (20B) and the 23 unit (20C) are disposed in the first direction, (please see Figure 15A, first row).
With regard to claim 8, Shigemura teaches a third unit that includes a 31 unit in which the 21 unit (20A), the 22 unit (20 B) and the 23 unit (20C) are sequentially disposed in the first (or horizontal direction). A 32 unit in which the 23 unit (20C), the 21 unit (20A) and the 22 unit (20B) are sequentially disposed in the first direction. A 33 unit in which the 22 unit (20b), the 23 unit (20C) and the 21 unit (20A) are disposed sequentially in the first direction, (please see Figures 15A and 15B).
It would then have been obvious to apply the teachings of Shigemura at the time of invention to modify the pixels of the display unit to have the specific MxN array of pixel arrangement for the benefit of achieving desired color display effect.
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun et al and Shigemura as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of US patent application publication by Lo (US 2013/0044372 A1).
The stereoscopic image display taught by Yun et al in combination with the teachings of Shigemura as described in claims 1 and 8 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claim 9, these references do not teach explicitly to include a fourth unit in which 31 unit, the 32 unit and the 33 unit are disposed in the third direction intersecting the first and second directions.
Lo in the same field of endeavor teaches a stereoscopic display that is comprised of a plurality pixels and plurality of lenes disposed on the display panel, (please see Figure 9), wherein the pixels and the plurality of lenes have an alternative arrangement that the plurality of lenses are extending in a same direction as the 31 unit, 32 unit and 33 unit are sequentially disposed. It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Lo to make the fourth unit and the plurality of lenes to be arranged in the same direction to achieve the stereoscopic view.
With regard to claim 10, Lo teaches that the fourth unit, the 31 unit, the 32 unit and the 33 unit are arranged sequentially in the third direction i.e. the same extension direction of the lenses.
With regard to claim 11, Shigemura in light of Lo the fourth unit is disposed in the first direction.
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and in view of the US patent issued to Van Berkel et al (PN. 6,118,584).
The stereoscopic image display taught by Lee as described in claim 12 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claim 13, Lee teaches that the stereoscopic image display also comprises a lens disposed on the display panel, (please see Figure 19). This reference however does not teach explicitly that the lens is extended in a third direction intersecting the first direction and the second direction. Van Berkel et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a stereoscopic image display that is comprised of a lens (16, Figure 9) that is disposed on the display panel (10) wherein the lens may be extending in a vertical direction while the plurality of pixels are arranged in a second direction that is angled with respect to the extending direction of the lens, (please see Figure 9). The third direction therefore is intersecting the first and second directions.
It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Van Berkel et al to modify the stereoscopic image display to have an alternative arrangement for the pixels and the lenses for the benefit of improving the brightness of the displayed image.
With regard to claim 14, Van Berkel et al teaches that the lens is disposed in a light emitting direction of the first, second and third pixels, (please see Figure 9).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUDREY Y CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2309. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 9:00AM-4:30PM.
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 B 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.
AUDREY Y. CHANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/AUDREY Y CHANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights