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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 8, 11,13-15, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The limitations of " a size of a lens width" in claims 1, 11,13, 14 and 17, and “a size of the lens-panel gap” in claim 14, wherein size being a two-dimensions measurement value, is grammatically inconsistence with width/gap that are a one-dimension measurement values; the limitations of "distance of the lens-panel gap" in the claims 1, 8, 11, 15, 19 and 20, wherein the belonging or possessive relationship of distance and gap includes semantically inconsistence since gap already means space/distance. After applying the broadest reasonable interpretation to the claim, the metes and bounds of the claimed invention still is not clear or definite.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 6-8, 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200271948 A1 MOMONOI, and further in view of US 20160105668 A1 Fang.
Regarding claim 1, MOMONOI discloses A parameter determination system (Fig.37) comprising: an optical panel including a plurality of variable lenses (Fig.7, [161], element image E is the optical panel including lenses); a display panel positioned to overlap with the optical panel and spaced apart from the optical panel by a lens-panel gap (Fig.4, [96], element image including 21s is apart from display panel 10), the display panel including a plurality of sub-pixels ([26]); a panel viewing distance controller ([116]-[117]) adjusting a viewing distance between the optical panel and an imaging device capturing the optical panel (Figs.32-33, 37, [253]-[255], as camera 50 moves to different positions Pca to Pck, viewing angles (e.g. angle between viewing direction and preopercular line to lenses 21s) are adjusted, so do the viewing distances).
MOMONOI fails to disclose a controller outputting a signal for adjusting at least one of a size of a lens width of the plurality of variable lenses and a distance of the lens-panel gap, based on images of the optical panel captured by the imaging device at different viewing distances.
However, Fang teaches a controller outputting a signal ([57]) for adjusting at least one of a size of a lens width of the plurality of variable lenses and a distance of the lens-panel gap, based on images of the optical panel captured by the imaging device at different viewing distances ([07], [13], [41], light spot as the variable lenses, and adjustment means that is a vertical grating as the lens-panel gap are reduced and adjusted, and the variable lenses correspondent to the images from acquisition device).
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 parameter determination system disclosed by MOMONOI to include the teaching in the same field of endeavor of Fang, in order to provide a three-dimensional integral imaging display device and display system, as identified by Fang.
Regarding claim 6, MOMONOI discloses The parameter determination system according to claim 1, wherein the panel viewing distance controller comprises: the imaging device comprising a camera; a first vertical support extending in a vertical direction from a ground; and a first horizontal support extending from the first vertical support in a horizontal direction on the optical panel, the camera is mounted on the first horizontal support, wherein the first horizontal support moves in the vertical direction along the first vertical support (Fig.37).
Regarding claim 7, MOMONOI discloses The parameter determination system according to claim 6, wherein the first vertical support further comprises a first rail guiding movement of the first horizontal support in the vertical direction ([257]).
Regarding claim 8, MOMONOI discloses The parameter determination system according to claim 1, further comprising: a lens-panel gap controller controlling a distance of the lens-panel gap between the optical panel and the display panel (Fig.4, [96]).
Regarding claim 11, MOMONOI discloses The parameter determination system according to claim 1, wherein: the controller compares a first number comprising a number of moires detected in an image captured at a first viewing distance with a second number comprising a number of moires detected in an image captured at a second viewing distance farther than the first viewing distance; and the controller outputs a signal for adjusting at least one of a size of the lens width and a distance of the lens-panel gap based on a comparison result of the first number with the second number (Fig.32, [165], [219]).
Regarding claim 12, MOMONOI discloses The parameter determination system according to claim 11, wherein the controller detects the number of moires in the image captured at the first viewing distance, and detects the number of moires in the image captured at the second viewing distance farther than the first viewing distance (Figs.33, 37).
Regarding claim 13, MOMONOI discloses The parameter determination system according to claim 12, wherein when the first number is less than the second number, the controller decreases the size of the lens width, and when the first number is greater than the second number, the controller increases the size of the lens width (Fig.33).
Regarding claim 14, MOMONOI discloses The parameter determination system according to claim 13, wherein the controller provides at least one of a size of the lens width and a size of the lens-panel gap as a parameter when both the first number and the second number are 0 ([162], [180]).
Regarding claim 15, MOMONOI discloses The parameter determination system according to claim 12, wherein when the first number is less than the second number, the controller decreases the distance of the lens-panel gap, and when the first number is greater than the second number, the controller increases the distance of the lens-panel gap ([218]-[220]).
Claim(s) 2, 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MOMONOI, in view of Fang, and further in view of US 20200117017 A1 OKUMOTO; Kazunori et al. (hereafter OKUMOTO).
Regarding claim 2, OKUMOTO teaches The parameter determination system according to claim 1, wherein the controller outputs the signal so that a number of moires detected in the images is decreased ([51]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention having all the references MOMONOI, Fang and OKUMOTO before him/her, to modify the parameter determination system disclosed by MOMONOI to include the teaching in the same field of endeavor of Fang and OKUMOTO, in order to provide a three-dimensional integral imaging display device and display system, as identified by Fang, and reduce luminance unevenness caused by interference between a pixel and a post spacer in a barrier panel in a parallax barrier system stereoscopic display device, as identified by OKUMOTO.
Regarding claim 16, see the rejection for claims 1 and 2.
Regarding claim 17, MOMONOI discloses The parameter determination method according to claim 16, wherein: when the first number is less than the second number, the controller decreases the size of the lens width; and when the first number is greater than the second number, the controller increases the size of the lens width (Fig.33).
Regarding claim 18, MOMONOI discloses The parameter determination method according to claim 17, wherein the controller provides the size of the lens width as a parameter when both the first number and the second number are 0 ([162], [180]).
Regarding claim 19, MOMONOI discloses The parameter determination method according to claim 16, wherein: when the first number is less than the second number, the controller decreases the distance of the lens-panel gap; and when the first number is greater than the second number, the controller increases the distance of the lens-panel gap ([218]-[220]).
Regarding claim 20, MOMONOI discloses The parameter determination method according to claim 19, wherein the controller provides the distance of the lens-panel gap as a parameter when both of the first number and the second number are 0 ([161]-[162]).
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MOMONOI, and further in view of US 20230209160 A1 CHUN; Jibuem et al. (hereafter Chun).
Regarding claim 3, Chun teaches The parameter determination system according to claim 1, wherein the optical panel further comprises: a base substrate supporting the plurality of variable lenses; a first magnet unit positioned inside the plurality of variable lenses; and a second magnet unit positioned on the base substrate ([16]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention having all the references MOMONOI, Fang and Chun before him/her, to modify the parameter determination system disclosed by MOMONOI to include the teaching in the same field of endeavor of Fang and Chun, in order to provide a three-dimensional integral imaging display device and display system, as identified by Fang, and a lens driver that can be implemented in a thin form while maintaining a driving force for lens movement, as identified by Chun.
Regarding claim 4, Chun teaches The parameter determination system according to claim 3, wherein: at least one of the first magnet unit and the second magnet unit is an electromagnet; and the controller outputs an electromagnet control signal for imparting magnetism to the at least one of the first magnet unit and the second magnet unit or removing magnetism from the at least one of the first magnet unit and the second magnet unit ([84]-[85]).
Regarding claim 5, MOMONOI discloses The parameter determination system according to claim 4, wherein a width of each of the plurality of variable lenses is controlled based on the electromagnet control signal ([161]).
Claim(s) 9, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MOMONOI, and further in view of US 20190186515 A1 Chen.
Regarding claim 9, Chen teaches The parameter determination system according to claim 8, wherein the lens-panel gap controller comprises: a second vertical support extending in a vertical direction from a ground; a second horizontal support extending from the second vertical support in a horizontal direction, the display panel is attached to the second horizontal support, and wherein the second horizontal support moves in the vertical direction along the second vertical support (Fig.20).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention having all the references MOMONOI, Fang and Chen before him/her, to modify the parameter determination system disclosed by MOMONOI to include the teaching in the same field of endeavor of Fang and Chen, in order to provide a three-dimensional integral imaging display device and display system, as identified by Fang, and an elbow holding type photographing support for camera, as identified by Chen.
Regarding claim 10, Chen teaches The parameter determination system according to claim 9, wherein the second vertical support further comprises a second rail guiding movement of the second horizontal support in the vertical direction (Fig.5).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 20200177794 A1, US 20180338137 A1, US 20110157338 A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRACY Y. LI whose telephone number is (571)270-3671. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Friday (8:30 AM- 4:30 PM) EST.
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, David Czekaj can be reached at (571) 272-7327. 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.
/TRACY Y. LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights