`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 2231371450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`15/933,639
`
`03/23/2018
`
`Miller H. Schuck
`
`229501
`
`1048
`
`REALD Inc. - Patent Department
`Stefan Bump
`5700 Flatiron Parkway
`Boulder CO 80301
`
`KO” TONY
`
`2878
`
`PAPERNUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`12/21/2020
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`
`following e—mail address(es):
`
`eofficeaction @ appcoll.com
`patent@rea1d.com
`patpros @reald.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`
`
`017/09 A0170” Summary
`
`Application No.
`15/933,639
`Examiner
`TONY KO
`
`Applicant(s)
`Schuck et al.
`Art Unit
`2878
`
`AIA (FITF) Status
`N0
`
`- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet wit/7 the correspondence address -
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing
`date of this communication.
`|f NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1). Responsive to communication(s) filed on 10/30/2020.
`CI A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2a)[:] This action is FINAL.
`
`2b)
`
`This action is non-final.
`
`3)[:] An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview
`on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4):] Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Expade Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`
`5)
`
`Claim(s)
`
`21—99 is/are pending in the application.
`
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`
`
`[:1 Claim(ss)
`
`is/are allowed.
`
`8)
`Claim(s 2_199 Is/are rejected
`
`D Claim(ss_) is/are objected to.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`S)
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement
`[:1 Claim(s
`* If any claims have been determined aflowable. you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`
`http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPeredback@uspto.gov.
`
`Application Papers
`
`10)|:l The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`is/are: a)[] accepted or b)l:] objected to by the Examiner.
`11)[:] The drawing(s) filed on
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`
`12)D Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a)I:l All
`
`b)|:] Some**
`
`c)l:i None of the:
`
`1C] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`2C] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`
`3D Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`
`** See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1) [3 Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`2) C] Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date_
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) E] Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`4) CI Other-
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20201211
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 15/933,639
`Art Unit: 2878
`
`Page 2
`
`Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
`
`The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
`
`Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
`
`A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR
`
`1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued
`
`examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the
`
`finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's
`
`submission filed on 10/30/2020 has been entered.
`
`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 orjoint
`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 21-99 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.
`
`Claims 21, 76 and 92 recite the following limitations ”a polarization conversion system operable
`
`II
`to direct time-sequential left and right stereo images ,
`
`II
`
`a first image light path” and ”a second image
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 15/933,639
`Art Unit: 2878
`
`Page 3
`
`light path”, ”diverging image light bearing the time-sequential left and right stereo images” which are
`
`not part of the original disclosure. MPEP 2163 dictates ”An appiioani Shows possession 01° the
`
`claimed invention by describing the ciairneci invention with aii of its iin3itations using such
`
`descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and iorrnuias that tuiiy set forth the
`
`strained invention Lockwood 1/ Amer Aiiiines inc, it)? F. 3d 1563157341 USPQZd 1361,
`
`136?: (Fed. Cir. 1337)
`
`MPEP 2163.92 states —
`
`'i’he courts have described the essential question to he addressed in a description
`’7
`reouirernent issue in a variety of ways. An ehiective star: dard for determining comoiianoe with
`the written description requirement is. "does the descrioti oncciearly aii-ow persons oi ordinary
`skiii in the art to recognize that he or she invented whatis ci ai.=ned‘ in re Gosteii. 8'72 Fid
`10313, 1312,10 USFQZd 1614-18181ii3eti.Cir 1389). Underil—asCain inc. t/..“via .uritar, ..3:.=
`F2} 1555, 156’364,1313.SP02dii
`, 1.117 (Fed. Cir. 133‘”, to satistythe written
`description requirement, an appiicaht must convey with reasonahie oiaiity‘ to these skiiied in
`the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention, and that
`the invention, in that context, is whatever is new eiainied. The test for suiticiency ot support in
`a parent application is whether the disciosure of the appiioatioh reiied upon "reasona'oiy
`conveys to the artisan that the inventor hati possession at that time of the tater oiaimed
`suhi eot :rzatter ” Sarision Purina (So. i! FarMar-£30., ML, 777’2 F. 2d 15731573227 USFQ
`177, 173 (Fed. Cir.
`385,: (quoting In re Kaslow, 707i:d 1 3?6 i375, 217 USPQ iiJ33, 103?e
`3i
`_
`(Fed.£‘.ir.1383ii.{§
`
`Whenever the issue arises, the fundamentai tactuai inquiry is whether the specification
`conveys viritii reasonable ciarity to those skiiied in the art that, as at the tiiing date sought,
`applicant was in possession oi the invention as new claimed. See, eg tfas~Garh, Inc. v.
`Mahurirar, 335 F.2d 1555, 15334154, 19 USPQ2d ii '11,
`‘i 117 (Fed. Cir. i931). An appiicant
`shows possession of the claimed invention by describing the eiairned invention with aii oi its
`iimitations using such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, anti tormtzias
`that fully set forth the claimed invention. Lockwood iI. Am. Airiines, inc, it)? F.3d 1565, 15722,
`41 LISFQZd 1981, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1397'). Possession may he shown in a variety of ways
`inciuding description of an actuai reduction to practice, or bv showing that the invention was
`"ready tor patentino" such as by thc- disclcsure-at drayin-gs or strLcturai-L.hemicai torrnLias
`that show that the invention was compiete or by desoriping distinguishing identiiyi no
`characteristics sutii-cie'nt to show that the appii-cant was in possessien oi the oiaairned
`invention. See e no Pie?'3‘ v Waits Eieos inc. 525 U S 55,68,119 S Ct 334, 3if2, 48
`USP’‘Ed tar-ii ie-t-.Ii1398,=; Regentsotthe Univ. of Cal. t/ EiiLi'iiy 119 F.3ti1553, 1538, 4-3
`USF’QEd i 398. i436 (F-eoi C‘i-r. 1997‘}; Kimgen, inc. v.1;iregret F’hann., 327’ F.2d i203, 12138.
`18 USF‘QQd 1015, 1021 (Fed Cir 199i) (one must define a compound 'oy "whatev' i
`characteristics siiiiioientiy distinguish it").
`
`The siihiect matter at the oiaim need not he described iiteraily (Le, using the same terms or in
`trees verbs) in order for the disciosure to satiety the description requirement. it a ciaini is
`amended to include suhiect matter, limitations, or terminoiogy not present in the anpiication as
`tiied, invoiving a departure from, addition to, or deietion from the tiisciossure of the appii-cation
`stiied, the e). arnir:er sh oL-iti LonLiude that the ciairnedsjuh eLt matter is not deerihedin that
`
`application This cpnciusion wii'1 result'in the reiection oi the ciairns attested untier :1} -
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 15/933,639
`Art Unit: 2878
`
`Page 4
`
`first paragraph -- description requirement, or denial {if the ‘
`
`
`
`in this instance, the rejectieh under this seetieh i3 pteper because the newiy fiieti etaims
`
`“tnctude subject matter, limitations, er terminotogy not preseht in the eppitcetien as filed,
`
`inveivtng a departure tram, addittee t0, er detetten tram the diesieeute of the appiicattee
`
`as; iiied, the examiner eheuid eeneiude that the Cieimed eubject matter is net deecribed
`
`in that epptteatien,”
`
`Claims 23%, 77/191 and 93-99 are rejected because of their dependency upen rejected
`
`Claims.
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`Applicant's arguments filed 10/30/2020 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
`
`Three arguments made in supporting applicant was in possession of the claimed invention to
`
`claim priority benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120.
`
`First, applicant argues ”..[b]ut respectfully submits that the terms ’ray bundle’ and ’image’ are
`
`used somewhat synonymously to describe the technical concept set out in the specification, and as
`
`presently claimed.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph [0026] of the specification shows
`
`images are produced by ray bundles (e.g. A’, B’, C’). The causal relationship between ray bundles and
`
`images set forth by the specification (one produced by another) does not appear to be consistent with
`
`the argument (section A1) set forth in applicant’s response filed on 10/30/2020. Also in A1, applicant
`
`argues ”[b]ecause the projection of stereoscopic images may be described in terms of ray bundles in the
`
`specification to teach or demonstrate the technical concept therein, it does not prevent the applicant
`
`from claiming the invention in terms that a Person of Ordinary Skill In The Art (POSITA) would clearly
`
`understand.” The argument is not persuasive because the original disclosure does n_ot teach ”projection
`
`of stereoscopic images” as argued, rather, the original disclosure teaches [0039] ”the stereoscopic
`
`images are displayed”.
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 15/933,639
`Art Unit: 2878
`
`Page 5
`
`Second, applicant argues the specification implicitly teaches directing time-sequential left and
`
`right stereo images onto an overlapping area of a cinema projection screen. Applicant relies upon US
`
`Patent 4792850 to Liptoh (hereafter ’850 patent). Upon a quick text search of the term ”ray bundle” in
`
`the ’850 patent, Examiner was unable to find reference to ray bundle. Therefore, it is unclear how ray
`
`bundles and images are used synonymously. The citation of paragraph [0029] in the argument dated
`
`10/30/2020, in addition to paragraph [0026] of the specification, demonstrates the relationship
`
`between ray bundle and images, but it does not support the applicant, at the filing of application (in
`
`pursuing priority date under 35 U.S.C. 120) has in their position ”a polarization conversion system
`
`operable to direct time-sequential left and right stereo images onto an overlapping area of a cinema
`
`projection screen”.
`
`Conclusion
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
`
`should be directed to TONY KO whose telephone number is (571)272-1926. The examiner can normally
`
`be reached on Monday-Friday 9-5pm.
`
`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,
`
`Georgia Epps can be reached on 571-272-2328. The fax phone number for the organization where this
`
`application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
`
`Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application
`
`Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained
`
`from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available
`
`through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 15/933,639
`Art Unit: 2878
`
`Page 6
`
`my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact
`
`the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a
`
`USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-
`
`9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
`
`/TONY KO/
`
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2878
`
`TK
`
`