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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/20/2025 and 04/28/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1, 16 and 20 are 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 1 in line 8, claim 16 in line 10 and claim 20 in line 10 recite the limitation " the microlens ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes “the microlens” will be read as “the microlens layer”.
Claims 2-15 are dependent on claim 1, claims 17-19 are dependent on claim 16 and are therefore rejected for at least the same reasons.
All 112 rejected claims will be interpreted as best understood, in light of the specification, unless otherwise stated.
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, 8-11, 15-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Steenblik et al. (US 2005/0180020 A1) in view of Drinkwater et al. (US 5,712,731).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Steenblik discloses an optical structure (Figures: 1A, 3a-i and 27; [0078] discloses: 12, system) comprising:
a base material layer ([0078] discloses: 5, optical spacer), wherein the base material layer comprises a first surface and a second surface opposite to each other ([0078] discloses: 5, optical spacer, has a lower planar surface; [0078] discloses: 5, optical spacer, has an upper planar surface; Examiner notes that the upper and lower planar surface are considered opposite, see Figure 1A, top and bottom of 5, optical spacer);
a pattern layer ([0078] discloses: 4, icon element, that projects the image toward the viewer, consider the pattern layer), wherein the pattern layer is arranged on the first surface of the base material layer (Figure 1A depicts: 4, icon elements, arranged on the bottom surface of 5, optical spacer, considered the first surface), the pattern layer comprises a plurality of pattern structures arranged in an array (Figure 3a-i depict: fill factors of different patterns), and each of the pattern structures is a portion of a preset pattern (Figure 27 depicts: 3D embodiment of synthetic image using portions of the letters, see [0208-0210]; thus considered to be the pattern structures being a portion of a preset pattern); and
a microlens layer ([0078] teaches: 1, micro-lenses, that focuses an image), wherein the microlens layer is arranged on the second surface of the base material layer (Figure 1A depicts: 1, micro-lenses, arranged on the top planar surface of 5, optical spacer, considered the second surface), the microlens layer comprises a plurality of microlenses arranged in an array ([0078] discloses: 1, micro-lenses, arranged in an array), each of the microlenses corresponding to one pattern structure (Figure 27 depicts and [0207] discloses: 680, single image projector, including an optical spacer and an icon image; thus considered microlenses corresponding to one pattern structure), and wherein the plurality of microlenses being are configured to cause the plurality of pattern structures to form the preset pattern with a three-dimensional (3D) effect ([0068] discloses: creating fully three-dimensional images with the present system).
Steenblik fails to disclose wherein the pattern structure is located within a projection of the corresponding microlens on the pattern layer. Steenblik and Drinkwater are related because both disclose optical structures.
Drinkwater teaches wherein the pattern structure is located within a projection of the corresponding microlens on the pattern layer (Figure 5 depicts and Col. 3 lines 10-20 teach: array of microlenses and a corresponding set of identical microimages, the corresponding arrays are perfectly aligned into register with an underneath microimage; thus a pattern structure is located within a projection of the microlenses from microimages, via aligned registers).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Steenblik in view of Drinkwater and provide wherein the pattern structure is located within a projection of the corresponding microlens on the pattern layer. Doing so would allow for registration of each microimage with its corresponding microlens, thereby improving reliable optical reconstruction of the intended image.
Regarding claim 8, the modified Steenblik discloses the optical structure according to claim 1, wherein the pattern layer comprises a plurality of pattern regions arranged in an array, each of the plurality of pattern regions corresponds to one microlens (Figures 23 and 27 depict: individual image projectors each comprising a lens and an associated image/icon zone, thereby providing a respective icon region corresponding to a respective microlens, see [0210]-[0213]), and a center of each of the plurality of pattern regions is aligned with the center of the corresponding microlens, (Drinkwater teaches corresponding microlens arrays having identical pitch register such that each lens has its corresponding microimage directly underneath it; thus, the corresponding lens/image regions are center-aligned) each of the plurality of pattern structures is arranged at a preset position in the corresponding pattern region (Figs. 27-28 depict: assigning to each icon zone/image projector specific icon image information determined by the intersection of the field of view cone of that image projector with the synthetic image space, see [0210]-[0213]), wherein each of the plurality of pattern structures corresponds to a preset portion of the corresponding microlens ([0211] discloses: each projectors information results from the intersection of its own field of view cone, centered on the image projector, with the synthetic image), and wherein a corresponding pattern is formed through the corresponding microlens (Examiner notes that Steenblik’s individual image projectors each contribute their particular icon information to the overall synthetic image, [0213]).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Steenblik discloses the optical structure according to claim 8, wherein a shape of one of the plurality of pattern regions is the same as a shape of a projection of each of the plurality of microlenses on the pattern layer (Figures 23-24b depicts: 570/609, icon zones and microlenses having a substantially hexagonal base geometry, such that the shape of the icon region corresponds to the shape of the plan-view projection of the microlens, Fig. 3g lens 60; Examiner notes that the corresponding optical field base is considered to have the same shape as the icon zone).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Steenblik discloses the optical structure according to claim 8, wherein a shape of one of the plurality of pattern regions is different from a shape of a projection of each of the plurality of microlenses on the pattern layer (Figure 23 depicts: pattern regions in the form of hexagonal icon zones 570 arranged in a hexagonal repeat pattern; Figure 3a depicts46, microlenses arranged in a corresponding regular hexagonal array but having substantially circular base geometries; thus, the hexagonal shape of the icon/pattern region differs from the circular plan-view projection of the corresponding microlens).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Steenblik discloses the optical structure according to claim 1, wherein the base material layer comprises at least one of a transparent polymer layer and a glass layer (Claims 63-64 disclose: optical spacer is formed of essentially transparent polymer).
Regarding claim 15, the modified Steenblik discloses the optical structure according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the plurality of pattern structures is formed of a metallic material, or a color-developing material ([0124] teaches: icon elements may be formed from pigmented or dyed material, including pigmented or dyed ink; see Figures 7a-7c).
Regarding claim 16, Steenblik discloses a terminal shell, comprising an optical structure, wherein the optical structure comprises:
a base material layer ([0078] discloses: 5, optical spacer), wherein the base material layer comprises a first surface and a second surface opposite to each other ([0078] discloses: 5, optical spacer, has a lower planar surface; [0078] discloses: 5, optical spacer, has an upper planar surface; Examiner notes that the upper and lower planar surface are considered opposite, see Figure 1A, top and bottom of 5, optical spacer);
a pattern layer ([0078] discloses: 4, icon element, that projects the image toward the viewer, consider the pattern layer), wherein the pattern layer is arranged on the first surface of the base material layer (Figure 1A depicts: 4, icon elements, arranged on the bottom surface of 5, optical spacer, considered the first surface), the pattern layer comprises a plurality of pattern structures arranged in an array (Figure 3a-i depict: fill factors of different patterns), and each of the pattern structures is a portion of a preset pattern (Figure 27 depicts: 3D embodiment of synthetic image using portions of the letters, see [0208-0210]; thus considered to be the pattern structures being a portion of a preset pattern); and
a microlens layer ([0078] teaches: 1, micro-lenses, that focuses an image), wherein the microlens is arranged on the second surface of the base material layer (Figure 1A depicts: 1, micro-lenses, arranged on the top planar surface of 5, optical spacer, considered the second surface), the microlens layer comprises a plurality of microlenses arranged in an array ([0078] discloses: 1, micro-lenses, arranged in an array), each of the microlenses corresponding to one pattern structure (Figure 27 depicts and [0207] discloses: 680, single image projector, including an optical spacer and an icon image; thus considered microlenses corresponding to one pattern structure), and wherein the plurality of microlenses being are configured to cause the plurality of pattern structures to form the preset pattern with a three-dimensional (3D) effect ([0068] discloses: creating fully three-dimensional images with the present system).
Steenblik fails to disclose wherein the pattern structure is located within a projection of the corresponding microlens on the pattern layer. Steenblik and Drinkwater are related because both disclose optical structures.
Drinkwater teaches wherein the pattern structure is located within a projection of the corresponding microlens on the pattern layer (Figure 5 depicts and Col. 3 lines 10-20 teach: array of microlenses and a corresponding set of identical microimages, the corresponding arrays are perfectly aligned into register with an underneath microimage; thus a pattern structure is located within a projection of the microlenses from microimages, via aligned registers).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Steenblik in view of Drinkwater and provide wherein the pattern structure is located within a projection of the corresponding microlens on the pattern layer. Doing so would allow for registration of each microimage with its corresponding microlens, thereby improving reliable optical reconstruction of the intended image.
The Applicant is reminded that claim preamble language, terminal shell, may not be treated as a limitation where it merely states an intended use of the system and is unnecessary to define the invention. Catalina Marketing Int'l Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., Fed. Cir., No. 01-1324, 5/8/02. It has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. Kropa v. Robie, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951). Accordingly, the functional claim language including the intended use set forth in the preamble has not been given the same patentable weight as a positively recited feature or structural relationship. Instead the Examiner has applied any prior art thereto by deducing whether the structure disclosed or taught by the reference is capable of performing the functional limitations and the intended use or purpose recited in the preamble, within the overall context of the claim, as applicable.
Regarding claim 20, Steenblik discloses a terminal, comprising a terminal shell, wherein the terminal shell comprises an optical structure that comprises:
a base material layer ([0078] discloses: 5, optical spacer), wherein the base material layer comprises a first surface and a second surface opposite to each other ([0078] discloses: 5, optical spacer, has a lower planar surface; [0078] discloses: 5, optical spacer, has an upper planar surface; Examiner notes that the upper and lower planar surface are considered opposite, see Figure 1A, top and bottom of 5, optical spacer);
a pattern layer ([0078] discloses: 4, icon element, that projects the image toward the viewer, consider the pattern layer), wherein the pattern layer is arranged on the first surface of the base material layer Figure 1A depicts: 4, icon elements, arranged on the bottom surface of 5, optical spacer, considered the first surface), the pattern layer comprises a plurality of pattern structures arranged in an array (Figure 3a-i depict: fill factors of different patterns), and each of the pattern structures is a portion of a preset pattern (Figure 27 depicts: 3D embodiment of synthetic image using portions of the letters, see [0208-0210]; thus considered to be the pattern structures being a portion of a preset pattern); and
a microlens layer ([0078] teaches: 1, micro-lenses, that focuses an image), wherein the microlens is arranged on the second surface of the base material layer (Figure 1A depicts: 1, micro-lenses, arranged on the top planar surface of 5, optical spacer, considered the second surface), the microlens layer comprises a plurality of microlenses arranged in an array ([0078] discloses: 1, micro-lenses, arranged in an array), each of the microlenses corresponding to one pattern structure (Figure 27 depicts and [0207] discloses: 680, single image projector, including an optical spacer and an icon image; thus considered microlenses corresponding to one pattern structure), and wherein the plurality of microlenses being are configured to cause the plurality of pattern structures to form the preset pattern with a three-dimensional (3D) effect ([0068] discloses: creating fully three-dimensional images with the present system).
Steenblik fails to disclose wherein the pattern structure is located within a projection of the corresponding microlens on the pattern layer. Steenblik and Drinkwater are related because both disclose optical structures.
Drinkwater teaches wherein the pattern structure is located within a projection of the corresponding microlens on the pattern layer (Figure 5 depicts and Col. 3 lines 10-20 teach: array of microlenses and a corresponding set of identical microimages, the corresponding arrays are perfectly aligned into register with an underneath microimage; thus a pattern structure is located within a projection of the microlenses from microimages, via aligned registers).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Steenblik in view of Drinkwater and provide wherein the pattern structure is located within a projection of the corresponding microlens on the pattern layer. Doing so would allow for registration of each microimage with its corresponding microlens, thereby improving reliable optical reconstruction of the intended image.
The Applicant is reminded that claim preamble language, A terminal, comprising a terminal shell, may not be treated as a limitation where it merely states an intended use of the system and is unnecessary to define the invention. Catalina Marketing Int'l Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., Fed. Cir., No. 01-1324, 5/8/02. It has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. Kropa v. Robie, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951). Accordingly, the functional claim language including the intended use set forth in the preamble has not been given the same patentable weight as a positively recited feature or structural relationship. Instead the Examiner has applied any prior art thereto by deducing whether the structure disclosed or taught by the reference is capable of performing the functional limitations and the intended use or purpose recited in the preamble, within the overall context of the claim, as applicable.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Steenblik et al. (US 2005/0180020 A1) in view of Drinkwater et al. (US 5,712,731), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Lundvall et al. (US 2015/0309321 A1).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Steenblik discloses the optical structure according to claim 1.
Steenblik fails to disclose a device wherein the preset pattern is a projection of a figure arranged on a 3D structure on a plane, and projections of figures on the 3D structure on the plane do not have an overlapping area. Steenblik and Lundvall are related because both disclose optical devices.
Lundvall teaches a device wherein the preset pattern is a projection of a figure arranged on a 3D structure on a plane (Claim 2 teaches: each cell comprises structures corresponding to portions of a projection of said set of three-dimensional models onto a plane), and projections of figures on the 3D structure on the plane do not have an overlapping area ([0065] teaches: depth sorting and depth clipping; [0073] teaches: each polygon is separated from neighbors by a distance, and depth clipping is performed to avoid errors; therefore the polygons corresponding to projection of figures do not have an overlapping area).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Steenblik in view of Lundvall and provide disclose a device wherein the preset pattern is a projection of a figure arranged on a 3D structure on a plane, and projections of figures on the 3D structure on the plane do not have an overlapping area. Doing so would allow for the desired three-dimensional object to be represented by planar image structures suitable for microlens array, thereby improving accurate reconstruction and visibility of the intended three-dimensional image.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Steenblik et al. (US 2005/0180020 A1) in view of Drinkwater et al. (US 5,712,731), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Raymond et al. (US 2014/0063611 A1).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Steenblik discloses the optical structure according to claim 1.
Steenblik fails to disclose an optical structure wherein more than one pattern structures in each row of the plurality of pattern structures satisfy a first preset condition, the first preset condition comprises a first combined pattern overlapping with a first sub-pattern of the corresponding preset pattern, the first combined pattern is formed by translating and combining the more than one pattern structures in each row of the plurality of pattern structures in a first preset direction, the first sub-pattern is a partial pattern of the preset pattern extending a first preset distance in a second preset direction, and the second preset direction is perpendicular to the first preset direction; and more than one pattern structures in each column of the plurality of pattern misstructures satisfy a second preset condition, the second preset condition comprises a second combined pattern overlapping with a second sub-pattern of the corresponding preset pattern, the second combined pattern is formed by translating and combining the more than one pattern structures in each column of the plurality of pattern structures in a second preset direction, and the second sub-pattern is a partial pattern of the preset pattern extending a second preset distance in the first preset direction. Steenblik and Raymond are related because both disclose optical systems.
Raymond teaches an optical structure (Figures: 4A, 4B and 5-7) wherein more than one pattern structures in each row of the plurality of pattern structures satisfy a first preset condition ([0012] teaches: lens array rows may have their centers aligned; thus a preset condition; Examiner notes that the first preset condition defines the relationship between the pattern structures of a row when the pattern structures are translated and combined in the first preset direction), the first preset condition comprises a first combined pattern overlapping with a first sub-pattern (Examiner notes that the first sub-pattern is a portion of the complete preset pattern corresponding to a particular row) of the corresponding preset pattern (Examiner notes that the preset pattern corresponds to the complete master pattern reconstructed by the pattern structures of Steenblik), the first combined pattern (Examiner notes that the first combined pattern is the pattern resulting from translating and combining the pattern structures of a particular row) is formed by translating and combining the more than one pattern structures in each row of the plurality of pattern structures in a first preset direction (Examiner notes that the first preset direction corresponds to the X direction along the row), the first sub-pattern is a partial pattern of the preset pattern extending a first preset distance in a second preset direction (Examiner notes that the first sub pattern extends a predetermined distance in the Y direction, perpendicular to the row/x direction), and the second preset direction is perpendicular to the first preset direction (Examiner notes that the X and Y directions are perpendicular to one another);
and more than one pattern structures in each column of the plurality of pattern structures satisfy a second preset condition (Examiner notes that the second preset condition defines the relationship between the pattern structures of a column when the pattern structures are translated and combined in the second preset direction), the second preset condition comprises a second combined pattern overlapping with a second sub-pattern of the corresponding preset pattern (Examiner notes that the second sub pattern is a portion of the complete preset pattern corresponding to a particular column), the second combined pattern is formed by translating and combining the more than one pattern structures in each column of the plurality of pattern structures in a second preset direction (Examiner notes that the second preset direction corresponds to the Y direction along the column), and the second sub-pattern is a partial pattern of the preset pattern extending a second preset distance in the first preset direction (Examiner notes that the second sub pattern extends in a predetermined distance in the X direction, perpendicular to the column/Y direction).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Steenblik in view of Raymond and provide an optical structure wherein more than one pattern structures in each row of the plurality of pattern structures satisfy a first preset condition, the first preset condition comprises a first combined pattern overlapping with a first sub-pattern of the corresponding preset pattern, the first combined pattern is formed by translating and combining the more than one pattern structures in each row of the plurality of pattern structures in a first preset direction, the first sub-pattern is a partial pattern of the preset pattern extending a first preset distance in a second preset direction, and the second preset direction is perpendicular to the first preset direction; and more than one pattern structures in each column of the plurality of pattern misstructures satisfy a second preset condition, the second preset condition comprises a second combined pattern overlapping with a second sub-pattern of the corresponding preset pattern, the second combined pattern is formed by translating and combining the more than one pattern structures in each column of the plurality of pattern structures in a second preset direction, and the second sub-pattern is a partial pattern of the preset pattern extending a second preset distance in the first preset direction. Doing so would allow image information to be reconstructed in both orthogonal directions, thereby improving the completeness and three-dimensional appearance of the resulting image.
Regarding claim 4, the modified Steenblik discloses the optical structure according to claim 3, wherein absolute values of differences in dimensions of every two adjacent pattern structures in each row of the plurality of pattern structures in the first preset direction are equal (Raymond: Figure 9 and corresponding disclosure, teaches the final two axis image as having a square composition including square image elements 916); and absolute values of differences in dimensions of every two adjacent pattern structures in each column of the plurality of pattern structures in the second preset direction are equal (Raymond: Examiner notes that the adjacent square pattern structures likewise have equal dimensions in the second preset direction; therefore, the dimensional difference between each adjacent pair is zero and the absolute values of the differences are equal).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Steenblik et al. (US 2005/0180020 A1) in view of Drinkwater et al. (US 5,712,731) in view of Raymond et al. (US 2014/0063611 A1), as applied to claim 3 above, in view Tumlinson (US 2017/0055825 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Steenblik discloses the optical structure according to claim 3.
Steenblik fails to disclose an optical device wherein two adjacent pattern structures in each row of the plurality of pattern structures are partially identical, the first preset condition comprises a first combined pattern overlapping with a corresponding first sub-pattern, and the first combined pattern is formed by combining the plurality of pattern structures in such a way that identical portions overlap; and two adjacent pattern structures in each column of the plurality of pattern structures are partially identical, the second preset condition comprises a second combined pattern overlapping with a corresponding second sub-pattern, and the second combined pattern is formed by combining the plurality of pattern structures in such a way that the identical portions overlap. Steenblik and Tumlinson are related because both disclose optical systems.
Tumlinson teaches an optical device wherein two adjacent pattern structures in each row of the plurality of pattern structures are partially identical ([0024] teaches: adjacent partial images have a significant degree of overlap in the field angles contained; thus, adjacent partial images contain common/identical image information over the overlapping portion), the first preset condition comprises a first combined pattern overlapping with a corresponding first sub-pattern ([0024]-[0025] teach: partial images transmitted through neighboring lenslets collectively form portion of the larger scene, with corresponding overlapping image information being superimposed at the retina), and the first combined pattern is formed by combining the plurality of pattern structures in such a way that identical portions overlap ([0025] teaches: rays representing the same field angle are generated by corresponding pixels in respective partial images and converge to the same location on the retina; therefore, the common image portions of the partial image are combined such that corresponding/identical portions overlap); and two adjacent pattern structures in each column of the plurality of pattern structures are partially identical ([0024] teaches: adjacent partial images having overlapping field angle content, because the partial images are associated with neighboring lenslets of the lenslet array, adjacent partial images contain common image information over their overlapping regions), the second preset condition comprises a second combined pattern overlapping with a corresponding second sub-pattern ([0024]-[0025] teaches: overlapping partial images associated with neighboring lenslets combine to reproduce a corresponding portion of the large scene), and the second combined pattern is formed by combining the plurality of pattern structures in such a way that the identical portions overlap ([0025] teaches: common field-angle information from respective partial images is projected to the same image location, such that corresponding portions of the partial images overlap in the reconstructed image).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Steenblik in view of Tumlinson and provide an optical device wherein two adjacent pattern structures in each row of the plurality of pattern structures are partially identical, the first preset condition comprises a first combined pattern overlapping with a corresponding first sub-pattern, and the first combined pattern is formed by combining the plurality of pattern structures in such a way that identical portions overlap; and two adjacent pattern structures in each column of the plurality of pattern structures are partially identical, the second preset condition comprises a second combined pattern overlapping with a corresponding second sub-pattern, and the second combined pattern is formed by combining the plurality of pattern structures in such a way that the identical portions overlap. Doing so would allow corresponding image information from adjacent pattern structures to overlap during reconstruction, thereby improving continuity and accurate formation of the resulting image.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Steenblik in view of Tumlinson and provide an optical device wherein two adjacent pattern structures in each row of the plurality of pattern structures are partially identical, the first preset condition comprises a first combined pattern overlapping with a corresponding first sub-pattern, and the first combined pattern is formed by combining the plurality of pattern structures in such a way that identical portions overlap; and two adjacent pattern structures in each column of the plurality of pattern structures are partially identical, the second preset condition comprises a second combined pattern overlapping with a corresponding second sub-pattern, and the second combined pattern is formed by combining the plurality of pattern structures in such a way that the identical portions overlap. Doing so would allow for the image information assigned to each lenslet to be derived from the corresponding portion of the larger image, thereby improving accurate reconstruction and continuity of the resulting three-dimensional image.
Regarding claim 6, the modified Steenblik discloses the optical structure according to claim 3, wherein more than one pattern structures in each row of the plurality of pattern unit structures are in the first preset direction (Raymond; [0055] and Figure 8 teach: the image portions associated with a row are provided as slices, 810 extending interlaced in the first/X-direction to form the corresponding row image); and more than one pattern structure in each column of the plurality of pattern structures are in the second preset direction (Raymund: [0056]-[0058] and Fig. 9 teach: providing and combining image portions in the second/Y direction, including the horizontally and vertically interlaced slices 912, 924).
Steenblik fails to disclose a device wherein more than one pattern structures in each row of the plurality of pattern unit structures are respectively portions cut from the corresponding first sub-pattern, and more than one pattern structure in each column of the plurality of pattern structures are respectively portions cut from the corresponding second sub-pattern. Steenblik and Tumlinson are related because both disclose optical systems.
Tumlinson teaches a device wherein more than one pattern structures in each row of the plurality of pattern unit structures are respectively portions cut from the corresponding first sub-pattern ([0023]-[0024] teaches: each partial image associated with a respective lenslet comprises a small portion of a larger scene, the larger scene being composed from the partial images associated with the plurality of lenslets; thus, the partial images correspond to respective portions of the larger image), and more than one pattern structure in each column of the plurality of pattern structures are respectively portions cut from the corresponding second sub-pattern ([0023]-[0024] teach: respective partial images are portions of the larger scene represented by the array; Examiner nots that “portions cut from “ defines the image-content relationship between each pattern structure and the corresponding sub-pattern and does not require a physical cutting operation).
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Steenblik et al. (US 2005/0180020 A1) in view of Drinkwater et al. (US 5,712,731), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Osawa et al. (US 2015/0168611 A1).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Steenblik discloses the optical structure according to claim 1.
Steenblik fails to disclose a device wherein the base material layer is a glass layer, the plurality of microlenses are outwardly extending portions of glass of the glass layer, and/or a plurality of grooves arranged in an array are arranged on a surface of the glass layer far away from the plurality of microlenses, each of the plurality of grooves corresponds to one pattern structure and is covered by a corresponding pattern structure, and a shape of each of the plurality of grooves is the same as the corresponding pattern structure. Steenblik and Osawa are related because both disclose optical systems.
Osawa teaches a device wherein the base material layer is a glass layer, the plurality of microlenses are outwardly extending portions of glass of the glass layer ([0189] discloses and Figure 12 depicts: a soda glass transparent substrate wherein the glass is directly etched to form a plurality of convex spherical surface microlenses on the substrate, such that the microlenses are outwardly extending portions of the glass substrate itself), and/or a plurality of grooves arranged in an array are arranged on a surface of the glass layer far away from the plurality of microlenses, each of the plurality of grooves corresponds to one pattern structure and is covered by a corresponding pattern structure, and a shape of each of the plurality of grooves is the same as the corresponding pattern structure.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Steenblik in view of Osawa and provide a device wherein the base material layer is a glass layer, the plurality of microlenses are outwardly extending portions of glass of the glass layer, and/or a plurality of grooves arranged in an array are arranged on a surface of the glass layer far away from the plurality of microlenses, each of the plurality of grooves corresponds to one pattern structure and is covered by a corresponding pattern structure, and a shape of each of the plurality of grooves is the same as the corresponding pattern structure. Doing so would allow for the microlens array to be formed directly in the substrate, thereby reducing separate lens-layer components and improving structural integration of the optical assembly.
Regarding claim 14, the modified Steenblik discloses the optical structure according to claim 1.
Steenblik fails to disclose a device wherein a thickness of the base material layer is a value in a range of 0.1-0.6 mm, and the thickness of the base material layer is a distance between the first surface and the second surface. Steenblik and Osawa are related because both disclose optical systems.
Osawa teaches a device wherein a thickness of the base material layer is a value in a range of 0.1-0.6 mm, and the thickness of the base material layer is a distance between the first surface and the second surface ([0189] teaches: substrate, corresponding to the claimed base material layer, wherein the substrate is a soda glass plate having a thickness of 0.3 mm, which falls within the claimed range of 0.1-0.6 mm).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Steenblik in view of Osawa and provide a device wherein a thickness of the base material layer is a value in a range of 0.1-0.6 mm, and the thickness of the base material layer is a distance between the first surface and the second surface. Doing so would allow the substrate to provide sufficient structural support while maintaining a compact optical assembly, thereby improving mechanical stability without unnecessarily increasing overall thickness.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Steenblik et al. (US 2005/0180020 A1) in view of Drinkwater et al. (US 5,712,731), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Schwartz et al. (US 2021/0333441 A1).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Steenblik discloses the optical structure according to claim 1, wherein an outer contour of one of the plurality of microlens is arc-shaped (Drinkwater: in at least abstract teaches: substantially spherical microlenses; therefore a cross sectional outer contour of the microlens is arc shaped), a projection of the microlens on the base material layer is circular (Drinkwater: teaches substantially spherical lenses, Col. 1 lines 48-52 teach each lens having a diameter; thereby teaching a circular plan view/orthographic footprint of the spherical lens), and a diameter of the projection is a value in a range of 100-300 μm (Drinkwater: Col. 1 lines 48-52 teaches: microlens diameter of 50-250 micron, which overlaps the claimed range).
Steenblik fails to disclose a device wherein a height of the microlens is a value in a range of 0.1-20 μm, and the height of the microlens is a distance between an end of the microlens far away from the base material layer and the base material layer. Steinbeek and Schwartz are related because both disclose optical system.
Schwartz teaches a device wherein a height of the microlens is a value in a range of 0.1-20 μm ([0096] teaches: maximum thickness of 14, microlenses is in the range from 1 micron to 20 microns), and the height of the microlens is a distance between an end of the microlens far away from the base material layer and the base material layer (Examiner notes that the taught maximum thickness of a protruding microlens corresponds to the distance from the supporting lens surface to the outermost end of the microlens, i.e., the claimed microlens height).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Steenblik in view of Schwartz and provide disclose a device wherein a height of the microlens is a value in a range of 0.1-20 μm, and the height of the microlens is a distance between an end of the microlens far away from the base material layer and the base material layer. Doing so would allow for control of the optical power and focal characteristics of the microlenses, thereby improving focusing of the corresponding pattern structures and reconstruction of the intended image.
Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Steenblik et al. (US 2005/0180020 A1) in view of Drinkwater et al. (US 5,712,731), as applied to claim 16 above, in view of Gao (US 2024/0248338 A1).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Steenblik discloses the terminal shell according to claim 16.
Steenblik fails to disclose a device further comprising: a transparent back cover, wherein the optical structure is arranged on a side of the transparent back cover close to an interior of a terminal; wherein the pattern layer of the optical structure is bonded to the transparent back cover, and an optical adhesive is arranged between the pattern layer and the transparent back cover to adhere the optical structure to an inner surface of the transparent back cover. Steenblik and Gao are related because both disclose optical systems.
Gao teaches a device further comprising: a transparent back cover (Figure 4 depicts: 20, back cover including 21, transparent cover plate, see [0098]), wherein the optical structure is arranged on a side of the transparent back cover close to an interior of a terminal (Figures 3 and 4 depict: 22, electrochemical film layer on the side of 21, transparent cover plate, facing the interior/display side of 100, electronic device); wherein the pattern layer of the optical structure is bonded to the transparent back cover (Gao teaches bonding a functional film layer to the inner surface of the transparent back cover, see Figure 4; in the modified claim, the patter layer side of the optical structure would be the side bonded to the transparent back cover), and an optical adhesive is arranged between the pattern layer and the transparent back cover to adhere the optical structure to an inner surface of the transparent back cover (Figure 4 depicts: 27, optically clear adhesive between 21, electrochemical film layer and 21, cover plate).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Steenblik in view of Gao and provide a device further comprising: a transparent back cover, wherein the optical structure is arranged on a side of the transparent back cover close to an interior of a terminal; wherein the pattern layer of the optical structure is bonded to the transparent back cover, and an optical adhesive is arranged between the pattern layer and the transparent back cover to adhere the optical structure to an inner surface of the transparent back cover. Doing so would allow the optical structure to be securely integrated behind the transparent cover while permitting light transmission through the cover, thereby protecting the optical structure and maintaining visibility of the intended optical effect.
Regarding claim 19, the modified Steenblik discloses the terminal shell according to claim 17, wherein the transparent back cover is made of a transparent polymer or glass (Gao: [0096] teaches: 21, transparent cover plate may be made of glass or a transparent resin material; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 17, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Steenblik et al. (US 2005/0180020 A1) in view of Drinkwater et al. (US 5,712,731) in view of Gao (US 2024/0248338 A1), as applied to claim 17 above, in view of Whitehead (US 2010/0085627 A1).
Regarding claim 18, the modified Steenblik discloses the terminal shell according to claim 17, wherein the preset pattern with a 3D suspension effect is formed by: incident light enters from the transparent back cover and reaches the microlens layer through the pattern layer (Gao supplies the transparent back cover/inner film orientation from claim 17; in the modified structure, incident light entering from the exterior passes through the transparent cover and pattern-side layers toward the microlens array).
Steenblik fails to disclose a device wherein incident light is reflected at the plurality of microlenses to generate reflected light, the reflected light propagates to the pattern layer, and forms an image on a side of the pattern layer far away from the base material layer. Steenblik and Whitehead are related because both disclose optical systems.
Whitehead teaches a device wherein incident light is reflected at the plurality of microlenses to generate reflected light ([0050] teaches: incident light rays undergoing total internal reflection within respective microlenses 225, 226 and 228 and being semi-retro-reflected back through the microlenses, See Fig. 7), the reflected light propagates to the pattern layer ([0050] teaches: light reflected within the microlenses returned toward the viewing/outward side of the display; in the modified claim 17 arrangement, the return path passes back toward and through the pattern side portion of the optical structure), and forms an image on a side of the pattern layer far away from the base material layer (Steenblik: form claim 16 supplies the array of partial images is optically combined into the synthetic 3-D image effect; Whitehead is only being used to convert the optical path into a reflective/return path; Steenblik’s synthetic image system provides the claimed 3-D image effect, while Whitehead teaches reflecting incident light back through the microlens array; considered forming an image on a aside of the pattern layer far away from the base material layer).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Steenblik in view of Whitehead and provide a device wherein incident light is reflected at the plurality of microlenses to generate reflected light, the reflected light propagates to the pattern layer, and forms an image on a side of the pattern layer far away from the base material layer. Doing so would allow ambient light entering through the transparent back cover to be redirected back toward the observer through the image-forming structure, thereby improving visibility of the reconstructed three-dimensional image without requiring a separate rear illumination source.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is 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 amended to overcome the 112b rejection.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 7, the prior art fails to teach or suggest “wherein the first and last pattern structures in each row of the plurality of pattern structures respectively comprise portions at both ends of the corresponding first sub-pattern in the first preset direction, wherein cut portions in each row of the plurality of pattern structures gradually increase from the first and last pattern structures to the middle pattern structure, and wherein a cut portion in the middle pattern structure comprises at least the middle portion of the corresponding first sub-pattern; and the first and last pattern structures in each column of the plurality of pattern structures respectively comprise portions at both ends of the corresponding second sub-pattern in the second preset direction, wherein cut portions in each column of the plurality of pattern structures gradually increases from the first and last pattern structure to the middle pattern structure, and wherein a cut portion in the middle pattern structure comprises at least the middle portion of the corresponding second sub-pattern” along with the structural limitations positively recited in claims 3 and 1, in a manner that would support a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or § 103, based on the prior art of record and the search requirements of MPEP § 904.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Shin et al. (US 2016/0191768 A1) and Ho et al. (US 2007/0159601 A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Sipes whose telephone number is (703)756-1372. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 4:30-9:30/12:30-7:30 (CT).
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571) 272-2713. 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.
John Sipes
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/J.C.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BALRAM T PARBADIA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights