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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Response to Restriction Requirement filed 08/02/2026. Claims 1-8 are pending and have been examined.
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/16/2025 and 01/23/2026 were considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/02/2026.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gonsher (US 2025/0314907) in view of Nakamoto (US 2010/0033655).
Consider claim 1, Gonsher clearly teaches a display apparatus, (Fig. 1) comprising:
a display panel; (Fig. 1: Second LCD screen 110, [0019]) and
a transparent display panel, disposed in front of the display panel, the display panel being separated from the transparent display panel by a distance, (Fig. 1: First LCD screen 105 is transparent and positioned in front of second LCD screen 110 separated by gap 115, [0019]-[0021])
wherein within a frame time of the display apparatus, the display panel displays a first image, the transparent display panel displays a second image, and the first image and the second image are matched to provide a real depth image, (Figs. 2-4: LCD screens 105, 110 each display video frames aligned to provide a three-dimensional display, [0018]-[0031].)
However, Gonsher does not explicitly teach the frame time comprises a plurality of sub-frame times in time sequence, the display panel displays a plurality of sub-images in the sub-frame times, respectively, the sub-images are different from each other, and the sub-images are capable of being superimposed to form the first image within the frame time.
In an analogous art, Nakamoto, which discloses a display device, clearly teaches the frame time comprises a plurality of sub-frame times in time sequence, the display panel displays a plurality of sub-images in the sub-frame times, respectively, the sub-images are different from each other, and the sub-images are capable of being superimposed to form the first image within the frame time. (Figs. 9(a)-10(c): Either of the first or second liquid crystal panels displays half of the image during a first field then the other half of the image during a second field to form a full frame, [0154]-[0164].)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Gonsher by the frame time comprises a plurality of sub-frame times in time sequence, the display panel displays a plurality of sub-images in the sub-frame times, respectively, the sub-images are different from each other, and the sub-images are capable of being superimposed to form the first image within the frame time, as taught by Nakamoto, for the benefit of eliminating moiré patterns.
Consider claim 2, Gonsher combined with Nakamoto clearly teaches each of the sub-images has a black pattern, and a plurality of black patterns of the sub-images have different spatial distributions in the display panel. (Figs, 10(b), 10(c): The even-numbered field and the odd-numbered field produce black patterns having different spatial distributions, [0157]-[0160] Nakamoto.)
Consider claim 3, Gonsher combined with Nakamoto clearly teaches the black pattern comprises a plurality of black stripes separated from each other. (Figs, 10(b), 10(c): The even-numbered field and the odd-numbered field produce separated black stripes, [0157]-[0160] Nakamoto.)
Consider claim 4, Gonsher combined with Nakamoto clearly teaches the black stripes of the black patterns of the sub-images are misaligned with each other. (Figs, 10(b), 10(c): The even-numbered field produces black stripes in the odd rows and the odd-numbered field produces black stripes in the even rows, [0157]-[0160] Nakamoto.)
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gonsher (US 2025/0314907) in view of Nakamoto (US 2010/0033655) in view of Chui et al. (US 2002/0159632), herein Chui.
Consider claim 5, Gonsher combined with Nakamoto clearly teaches the black stripes of the black patterns of the sub-images are a plurality of black stripes. (Figs, 10(b), 10(c): The even-numbered field and the odd-numbered field produce separated black stripes, [0157]-[0160] Nakamoto.)
Nakamoto further teaches the direction of the stripes corresponds to the raster scan direction ([0157], [0158]). However, Gonsher combined with Nakamoto does not explicitly teach a plurality of vertical black stripes.
In an analogous art, Chui, which discloses a system for image processing, clearly teaches a vertical raster scan. (Fig. 12, [0103])
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Gonsher combined with Nakamoto by performing vertical raster scanning thereby creating a plurality of vertical black stripes, as taught by Chui, to achieve the predictable result of forming an image.
Consider claim 6, Gonsher combined with Nakamoto and Chui clearly teaches the black stripes of the black patterns of the sub-images (Figs, 10(b), 10(c): The even-numbered field and the odd-numbered field produce separated black stripes, [0157]-[0160] Nakamoto.) are a plurality of diagonal black stripes. (Fig. 12: Diagonal raster scan, [0103] Chui)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 8 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.
Conclusion
In the case of amending the claimed invention, applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN R SCHNURR whose telephone number is (571)270-1458. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6a-4p.
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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at (571)272-7527. 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 R SCHNURR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights