Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
SUMMARY
2. The application filed on November 12, 2025, has been received and made of record. There are 1-20 claims in the application of which claims 1, and 15 are independent claims. Claims 2-14 and 16-20 are dependent claims. Therefore, claims 1-20 are pending for consideration.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement(IDS) submitted was filed on November 13, 2025 after the mailing date of the application on November 12, 2025. The IDS submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
4. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. The limitations, “the Pancharatnam-Berry lens configured to convert pixel light emitted by the light-emitting element into light having an increasing width and into light having decreasing width” must be shown or the features canceled from the claims.
Figures submitted on November 12, 2025, only show the Pancharatnam-Berry lens either increases the light width(fig.4C) or decreases the light width(fig.4B) but not together. Specification also discloses logic “OR” parameter in describing the light width not the logic “AND” parameter. Therefore, the Pancharatnam-Berry lens either increases or decreases the light width once at a time. New drawing is required to show both increasing and decreasing light width once at time. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-5, 7, 10, 13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niioka et al.(US 2006/0291243 A1) (herein after Niioka) in view of FU et al.(US 2025/0370267 A1) (herein after FU).
Regarding claim 15, Niioka teaches a display device(display apparatus, Para-2) comprising:
a light-emitting element configured to emit light(Para-81, 88, 117);
a Pancharatnam-Berry lens(Fresnel lens sheet 3, fig.8, Para-81, 107) disposed on the light-emitting element(Para-91);
an active shutter(transparent/scattering switching element 5, fig.8, Para-100) disposed on the Pancharatnam-Berry lens(lens 3), the active shutter(5) configured to change a polarization state of light incident from the Pancharatnam-Berry lens(3) responsive to a mode control voltage applied to the active shutter(Para-101); and
a polarizer(polarizing plate 36, fig.8, Para-102) disposed on the active shutter(5), the polarizer configured to transmit or absorb light output from the active shutter(it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art polarizing plate will transmit light of the display device, so that user could view image displayed on the display apparatus),
wherein the light transmitted through the polarizer has a first viewing angle(wide viewing angle, Para-108)(in wide viewing angle state, V=0 voltage is applied to electrodes) responsive to the mode control voltage applied to the active shutter being in a first state(wide-angle viewing state), and
wherein the light transmitted through the polarizer(36) has a second viewing angle(narrow viewing angle, Para-4, 109) narrower than the first viewing angle(Para-109, 111), responsive to the mode control voltage applied to the active shutter being in a second state(Para-109, 111) different from the first state (wide angle viewing state).
If it is considered that Niioka is not found to teach expressly all limitations, specially the limitations, “a Pancharatnam-Berry lens disposed on the light-emitting element” in his/her disclosure, then it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Niioka with the teaching of FU associated with figs.1A-1C and related texts in order to teach the claim limitations. FU teaches an optical system and display apparatus, wherein a Pancharatnam-Berry Lens PBL(figs.1A-1C) is used to convert pixel light emitted by the light-emitting element into light having an increasing width and into light having decreasing width. Such a combination and/or modification is desirable as it provides a display device capable of setting focal power of a second area to be larger, so that light whose light incident angle is large could be focused at same position through regulation of light in the second area, to reduce chromatic aberration.
Regarding claim 16, Niioka as modified by FU teaches the display device according to claim 15,
wherein the Pancharatnam-Berry lens(PBL figs.1A-1C, FU) converts the light incident from the light-emitting element having a first width into wide view light having first circular polarization(Para-58, 77, FU) rotating in a first direction and a width increasing from the first width (fig.1B&1C), and
the Pancharatnam-Berry lens(PBL figs.1A-1C, FU) converts the light incident from the light-emitting element into a narrow view light having second circular polarization(Para-58, 77, FU) rotating in a second direction opposite the first direction and a width decreasing from the first width (figs.1A&1C, FU).
Regarding claim 17, Niioka as modified by FU teaches the display device according to claim 15, wherein the polarizer transmits light having first linear polarization that oscillates in a first direction and absorbs light having second linear polarization that oscillates in a second direction different from the first direction, among light incident from the active shutter(Para-24, 85, Niioka; Para-58, 78, FU).
Regarding claim 18, Niioka as modified by FU teaches the display device according to claim 15, wherein
the active shutter comprises liquid crystal molecules aligned on an alignment film at a predetermined alignment angle, the alignment angle being changed according to the mode control voltage((narrow viewing angle, or wide viewing angle, Para-4, 108-109, Niioka), and
the liquid crystal molecules have a first alignment angle with respect to the alignment film when the mode control voltage is in the first state and have a second alignment angle different from the first alignment angle with respect to the alignment film when the mode control voltage is in the second state(wide viewing angle, or narrow viewing angle, Para-4, 108-109, Niioka).
Regarding claim 19, Niioka as modified by FU teaches the display device according to claim 15, wherein the active shutter changes the light incident from the light-emitting element from circular polarization to linear polarization (Para-105, FU) or reverses a rotation direction of the circular polarization of the pixel light depending on the state of the mode control voltage.
Regarding claim 20, Niioka as modified by FU is not found to teach expressly the display device according to claim 15, further comprising a quarter wave plate provided between the polarizer and the active shutter. However, FU teaches a phase retardation film 400(fig.3) to enable transmitted light to implement conversion between a circularly polarization state and a linearly polarization state(Para-77) and phase retardation film 400 could be used as a quarter-wave plate.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Niioka with the teaching of FU in order to get the claim invention. Such a modification is desirable as it reduces chromatic aberration, thus improving imaging definition and visual experience and immersion of a user.
Claim 1 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 15, since both claims 1, and 15 recited identical claim limitations except difference in preamble.
Claim 2 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 16, since both claims 2, and 16 recited identical claim limitations except difference in preamble.
Regarding claim 3, Niioka as modified by FU teaches the display device according to claim 1, wherein the Pancharatnam-Berry lens comprises a reactive mesogen film having reactive mesogen aligned on an alignment film in a predetermined pattern(fig.7A, Niioka; figs.23A-23D, FU).
Regarding claim 4, Niioka as modified by FU teaches the display device according to claim 1, wherein the polarizer transmits light having first linear polarization that oscillates in a first direction and absorbs light having second linear polarization that oscillates in a second direction different from the first direction, among light incident from the active shutter(fig.7A, Niioka; figs.23A-23D, FU).
Regarding claim 5, Niioka as modified by FU teaches the display device according to claim 1, wherein
the active shutter comprises liquid crystal molecules aligned on an alignment film at a predetermined alignment angle, the alignment angle being changed according to the mode control voltage(Para-4, 108-109, 111, Niioka; also fig.7A), and
the liquid crystal molecules have a first alignment angle with respect to the alignment film when the mode control voltage has a turn-off voltage and have a second alignment angle different from the first alignment angle with respect to the alignment film when the mode control voltage has a turn-on voltage(Para-4, 108-109, 111, Niioka; also fig.7A).
Claim 7 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 19, since both claims 7, and 19 recited identical claim limitations except difference in preamble.
Claim 10 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 20, since both claims 10, and 20 recited identical claim limitations except difference in preamble.
Regarding claim 13, Niioka as modified by FU teaches the display device according to claim 1, wherein the light-emitting element(11, fig.8, Niioka) is disposed on a front surface of a substrate(sheet 14, fig.8, Para-92), and the Pancharatnam-Berry lens(lens 3, fig.8, Niioka; figs.1A-1C, FU), the active shutter(5, fig.8, Niioka), and the polarizer(36, fig.8, Niioka) are sequentially disposed on the light-emitting element(11, fig.8, Niioka).
9. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niioka et al.(US 2006/0291243 A1) in view of FU(US 2025/037 0267 A1) and further in view of MINAMI et al.(US 2023/0176424 A1) (herein after MINAMI).
Regarding claim 9, Niioka as modified by FU is not found to teach expressly the display device according to claim 2, wherein when the mode control voltage has a turn-off voltage, the active shutter polarizes the first circular polarization into a first linear polarization and converts the second circular polarization into a second linear polarization, and when the mode control voltage has a turn-on voltage, the active shutter polarizes the first circular polarization into the second linear polarization and converts the second circular polarization into the first linear polarization.
However, MINAMI teaches a head mounted display, wherein
when the mode control voltage has a turn-off voltage, the active shutter polarizes the first circular polarization into a first linear polarization and converts the second circular polarization into a second linear polarization(Para-166), and when the mode control voltage has a turn-on voltage, the active shutter polarizes the first circular polarization into the second linear polarization and converts the second circular polarization into the first linear polarization (Para-167).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified Niioka further with the teaching of MINAMI to include the features in order to provide an optical element that can switch between polarization modulation and no polarization modulation in a broad bandwidth and has a thin profile.
10. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niioka et al.(US 2006/0291243 A1) in view of FU(US 2025/037 0267 A1) and further in view of YUN et al.(US 2007/0195409 A1) (herein after YUN).
Regarding claim 14, Niioka as modified by FU teaches all the claim limitations of the substrate, the light-emitting element, the pancharatnam-Berry lens, the active shutter and the polarizer but fails teach expressly position of the above-mentioned components recited in the claim.
However, YUN teaches a stereoscopic image display apparatus, wherein the light-emitting element(backlight assembly 300, fig.12) is disposed on a front surface of substrate(first switching substrate 510, fig.12, Para-114) of the display apparatus(fig.12),
the [Pancharatnam-Berry] lens(image lens part 130, stereoscopic image conversion panel 100, figs.1&12, Para-41, 125) is disposed between the light-emitting element(300) and the substrate(510, fig.12), and
the active shutter(switching panel 500, 520, 540, 530, fig.12) and the polarizer(polarizing plate 600, fig.12, Para-125) are disposed on a rear surface of the substrate(510).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified Niioka further with the teaching of YUN to include the features in order to provide image display apparatus where a response speed of liquid crystal molecules in response to changes in electric field be increased.
Allowable Subject Matter
11. Claims 6, 8, and 11-12 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.
12. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 6: None of the prior arts, on record, taken alone or in combination, provides a reasonable motivation to fairly teach or suggest the applicant’s claim invention, “the display device according to claim 5, wherein when the mode control voltage has the turn-off voltage, the active shutter outputs incident light in a state in which a wavelength of the incident light is delayed by a first phase by causing the liquid crystal molecules to have the first alignment angle, and when the mode control voltage has the turn-on voltage, the active shutter outputs incident light in a state in which a wavelength of the incident light is delayed by a second phase by causing the liquid crystal molecules to have the second alignment angle”.
Claim 8: None of the prior arts, on record, taken alone or in combination, provides a reasonable motivation to fairly teach or suggest the applicant’s claim invention, “the display device according to claim 1, wherein the active shutter phase-delays a wavelength of incident light by 3/4 wavelength when the mode control voltage has a turn-off voltage, and the active shutter phase-delays the wavelength of the incident light by 1/4 wavelength when the mode control voltage of a turn-on voltage is applied”.
Claim 11: None of the prior arts, on record, taken alone or in combination, provides a reasonable motivation to fairly teach or suggest the applicant’s claim invention, “the display device according to claim 10, wherein the active shutter does not delay a wavelength of incident light when the mode control voltage has a turn-on voltage, and the active shutter phase-delays the wavelength of the incident light by 1/2 wavelength when the mode control voltage has a turn-off voltage”.
Claim 12 is also rejected because of its dependency on the objected base claim.
Examiner Note
13. The Examiner cites particular figures, paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the references, as applied to the claims above. Although the particular citations are representative teachings and are applied to specific limitations within the claims, other passages, internally cited references, and figures may also apply. In preparing a response, it is respectfully requested that the Applicant fully consider the references, in their entirety, as potentially disclosing or teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as fully consider the context of the passage as taught by the references or as disclosed by the Examiner.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD SAIFUL A SIDDIQUI whose telephone number is (571)270-1530. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9:00AM - 5:30PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Temesghen Ghebretinsae, can be reached on (571)272-3017. 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.
/MD SAIFUL A SIDDIQUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2626
Prosecution Insights