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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 41-60 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14, 16-19, 32 of U.S. Patent No. 12,259,608. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the independent claims of the instant application claim a broader display apparatus than that of Patent 12,259,608.
The Claims correspond accordingly:
Pending Claims 18/599,775
Patent 12,259,608 Claims
41
1
42
2
43
3
44
4
45
5, 6
46
7
47
8
48
9
49
10
50
11
51
12
52
13
53
14
54
16
55
16
56
17
57
18
58
1
59
19
60
32
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 41, 53-60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodgate et al (US Publication No.: US 2021/0341769 A1, “Woodgate”) in view of Harrold et al (US Publication No.: US 2019/0227366 A1, “Harrold”).
Regarding Claim 41, Woodgate discloses a display apparatus (Figure 2A), comprising
A display device (Figure 2A) comprising:
A spatial light modulator arranged to output spatially modulated light (Figure 2A, transmissive spatial light modulator 48, SLM; Paragraph 0163);
A display polarizer arranged on a side of the spatial light modulator (Figure 2A, display polarizer 218/210),
The display polarizer being a linear polarizer (Paragraph 0163);
A view angle control arrangement comprising:
An additional polarizer arranged on the same side of the spatial light modulator as the display polarizer (Figure 2A, 318A/318B),
The additional polarizer being a linear polarizer (Paragraph 0174); and
At least one polar control retarder arranged between the display polarizer and the additional polarizer (Figure 3A, polar control retarder 300A), wherein
The at least one polar control retarder comprises a switchable liquid crystal retarder comprising a layer of liquid crystal material (Figure 3A, switchable liquid crystal retarder 300A comprises liquid crystal material 414A);
A plurality of surface alignment layers disposed adjacent to the layer of liquid crystal material and on opposite sides thereof (Figure 3A, surface alignment layers 417AA/417AB; Paragraph 0174),
The surface alignment layers each being arranged to provide alignment in the liquid crystal material (Paragraph 0218),
The liquid crystal material being provided with a twist (Figure 3B discloses a twist in the liquid crystal material).
Woodgate fails to disclose a first electrode arrangement and a second electrode arrangement disposed on the layer of liquid crystal material and being arranged to provide an electric field to the layer of liquid crystal material; and a control system arranged to provide voltages to the first electrode arrangement and the second electrode arrangement for controlling a direction of minimum light transmission of the view angle control arrangement.
However, Harrold discloses a similar arrangement comprising a first electrode arrangement and a second electrode arrangement disposed on the layer of liquid crystal material and being arranged to provide an electric field to the layer of liquid crystal material (Harrold, Figure 1A, first and second electrode arrangements 413/415 disposed on opposite sides of the layer of liquid crystal material 413/314, control system 400; Paragraph 0154); and a control system arranged to provide voltages to the first electrode arrangement and the second electrode arrangement for controlling a direction of minimum light transmission of the view angle control arrangement (Harrold, Figure 6A, control system 400; Paragraph 0160).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system as disclosed by Woodgate to include an electrode arrangement and control system as disclosed by Harrold. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of providing improved accuracy performance (Harrold, Paragraph 0010).
Regarding Claim 53, Woodgate in view of Harrold discloses the display apparatus of claim 41, wherein the surface alignment layers are each arranged to provide homogenous alignment in the adjacent liquid crystal material, the surface alignment layers having an in-plane component in the plane of the layer of liquid crystal material having an angle that changes monotonically along a predetermined axis across at least part of the display device (Woodgate, Figure 2; Paragraph 0174 and Paragraph 0218 disclose homogenous alignment which inherently discloses monotonic change).
Regarding Claim 54, Woodgate in view of Harrold discloses the display apparatus of claim 41, wherein the twist is in a range from 60° to 120° (Woodgate, Figure 3B discloses orientation such as 90°).
Regarding Claim 55, Woodgate in view of Harrold discloses the display apparatus of claim 41, wherein the twist is in a range from 70° to 90° (Woodgate, Figure 3B discloses orientation such as 90°).
Regarding Claim 56, Woodgate in view of Harrold discloses the display apparatus of claim 41, wherein an electric vector transmission direction of the additional polarizer is oriented at a non-zero angle with respect to an electric vector transmission direction of the display polarizer (Woodgate, Paragraph 0068; Paragraph 0280; Figure 12A).
Regarding Claim 57, Woodgate in view of Harrold discloses the display apparatus of claim 56, wherein the non-zero angle is the same as the twist (Woodgate, Figure 12A discloses twisted liquid crystal cells 414 with acute non-zero angles).
Regarding claim 58, Woodgate discloses a display apparatus (Figure 2A), comprising
A display device (Figure 2A) comprising:
A spatial light modulator arranged to output spatially modulated light (Figure 2A, transmissive spatial light modulator 48, SLM; Paragraph 0163);
A display polarizer arranged on a side of the spatial light modulator (Figure 2A, display polarizer 218/210),
The display polarizer being a linear polarizer (Paragraph 0163);
A view angle control arrangement comprising:
A plurality of surface alignment layers disposed adjacent to the layer of a liquid crystal material of a switchable liquid crystal retarder and on opposite sides thereof (Figure 3A, switchable liquid crystal retarder 300A comprises liquid crystal material 414A, surface alignment layers 417AA/417AB; Paragraph 0174),
The surface alignment layers each being arranged to provide alignment in the liquid crystal material (Paragraph 0218),
The liquid crystal material being provided with a twist (Figure 3B discloses a twist in the liquid crystal material).
Woodgate fails to disclose a first electrode arrangement and a second electrode arrangement disposed on the layer of liquid crystal material and being arranged to provide an electric field to the layer of liquid crystal material; and a control system arranged to provide voltages to the first electrode arrangement and the second electrode arrangement for controlling a direction of minimum light transmission of the view angle control arrangement.
However, Harrold discloses a similar arrangement comprising a first electrode arrangement and a second electrode arrangement disposed on the layer of liquid crystal material and being arranged to provide an electric field to the layer of liquid crystal material (Harrold, Figure 1A, first and second electrode arrangements 413/415 disposed on opposite sides of the layer of liquid crystal material 413/314, control system 400; Paragraph 0154); and a control system arranged to provide voltages to the first electrode arrangement and the second electrode arrangement for controlling a direction of minimum light transmission of the view angle control arrangement (Harrold, Figure 6A, control system 400; Paragraph 0160).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system as disclosed by Woodgate to include an electrode arrangement and control system as disclosed by Harrold. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of providing improved accuracy performance (Harrold, Paragraph 0010).
Regarding Claim 59, Woodgate in view of Harrold discloses the display apparatus of claim 58, wherein the twist is in a range from 60° to 120° or in a range from 70° to 90° (Woodgate, Figure 3B discloses orientation such as 90°).
Regarding Claim 60, Woodgate in view of Harrold discloses the display apparatus of claim 58, further comprising an additional polarizer arranged on the same side of the spatial light modulator as the display polarizer, wherein an electric vector transmission direction of the additional polarizer is oriented at a non-zero angle with respect to an electric vector transmission direction of the display polarizer, and the non-zero angle is the same as the twist (Woodgate, Figure 2, second additional polarizer 318B arranged on the same side of the spatial light modulator 48 as the additional polarizer 318A outside the additional polarizer 318A polar control retarder 300A; Paragraphs 0164-0165).
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodgate in view of Harrold in further view of Woodgate et al (US Publication No.: US 2019/0215509 A1, “Woodgate’509”) and Hendrick et al (US Publication No.: US 2015/0088284 A1, “Hendrick”).
Regarding Claim 42, Woodgate in view of Harrold discloses the display apparatus of claim 41.
Woodgate fails to disclose a viewer tracking system arranged to track the location of a viewer.
However, Woodgate’509 discloses a similar apparatus comprising a viewer tracking system arranged to track the location of a viewer (Woodgate’509, Figures 7-9, 11; Paragraphs 0204-0206).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system as disclosed by Woodgate to include viewer tracking system as disclosed by Woodgate’509. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of providing improved accuracy performance (Woodgate’509, Abstract).
Woodgate also fails to disclose that the control system is arranged to vary the voltages to at least one of the first electrode arrangement based on the tracked location of the viewer.
However, Hendrick discloses a similar apparatus where the control system is arranged to vary the voltages to at least one of the first electrode arrangement based on the tracked location of the viewer (Hendrick, Paragraph 0032).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system as disclosed by Woodgate to include a varying voltage control system as disclosed by Hendrick. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of improve detecting, interpreting, and recording the electric field to control an external device (Hendrick, Paragraph 0002).
Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodgate in view of Harrold in further view of Smith (US Publication No.: US 2010/0066960 A1).
Regarding Claim 43, Woodgate in view of Harrold discloses the display apparatus of claim 41.
Woodgate fails to disclose that the control system is arranged to accept a user input indicating a minimum light transmission of the view angle control arrangement, and the control system is arranged to vary the voltages to at least one of the first electrode arrangement or the second electrode arrangement based on the user input.
However, Smith discloses a similar system where the control system is arranged to accept a user input indicating a minimum light transmission of the view angle control arrangement, and the control system is arranged to vary the voltages to at least one of the first electrode arrangement or the second electrode arrangement based on the user input (Smith, Paragraph 0062).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system as disclosed by Woodgate to include user input as disclosed by Smith. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of providing a novel liquid crystal mode (Smith, Abstract).
Claim 44 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodgate in view of Harrold in further view of Robinson et al (US Publication No.: US 2021/0149233 A1, “Robinson”).
Regarding Claim 44, Woodgate in view of Harrold discloses the display apparatus of claim 41.
Woodgate fails to disclose that the magnitude of the electric field perpendicular to the layer of liquid crystal material changes monotonically along a predetermined axis across at least part of the display device.
However, Robinson discloses a similar apparatus where the magnitude of the electric field perpendicular to the layer of liquid crystal material changes monotonically along a predetermined axis across at least part of the display device (Robinson, Paragraphs 0167-0170).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system as disclosed by Woodgate to include a changing electric field with respect to the liquid crystal material as disclosed by Robinson. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of improving uniformity of luminance (Robinson, Abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 45-52 are 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, and if the double patenting rejection were overcome.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Takei (US 5,726,729) discloses that magnitude of the electric field perpendicular to the layer of liquid crystal material changes monotonically (Takei, Column 4, l.27-37).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIAM QURESHI whose telephone number is (571)272-4434. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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.
/MARIAM QURESHI/Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights