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 .
Remark
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed on February 25, 2026, which has been entered into the file.
By this amendment, the applicant has amended claim 1.
Claims 6 and 9-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on April 14, 2022.
Claims 1-5, 7-8, 13-14 and 17-19 remain pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-8, 13-14, and 17-19 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.
Claim 1 has been amended to include the phrase “wherein the transmissive hologram comprises a transparent cylindrical base material with photosensitive material applied directly to the transparent base material” that is not fully and explicitly supported by the specification of originally filed. The specification discloses that the transmissive hologram only has a photosensitive material (30), and does not have a transparent base material.
Claims 2-5, 7-8, 13-14 and 17-19 inherit the rejection from their based claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-8, 13-14, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the US patent application by Roberts et al (US 2013/0033650 A1) in view of the patent issued to Pu (PN. 6,751,879), the US patent application publication by Liu et al (US 2012/0147003 A1) the US patent application publication by Kim et al (US 2009/0323145 A1) and US patent issued to Robinson et al (PN. 4,830,445).
Claim 1 has been significantly amended to necessitate the new grounds of rejection.
Roberts et al teaches with respect to the amended claim 1, an image display device that is comprised of a base (44, Figures 3-7) having a cylindrical shape and a diameter and disposed at bottom of the image display device, a projector (50) serves as the emission portion that radially emits image light along a predetermined axis in an upward direction at one or more predetermined emission angles between the predetermined axis and an optical path of light corresponding to the image light, and a display surface (18) serves as the irradiation target disposed at at least a part around the predetermined axis, a reflector (20) serves as the optical portion that controls an incident angle of the image light on the irradiation target (18), the image light having been emitted from the emission portion (50), the optical portion (20) being disposed in a manner that the optical portion faces the emission portion on a basis of the predetermined axis the optical portion comprises a reflector (20) serves as the reflection surface reflecting the image light from the emission portion. Roberts et al teach the optical portion (20) has a rotationally symmetric shape around the predetermined axis and having a rotation surface obtained by rotating curve around the predetermined axis, (please see paragraph [0030]). Roberts et al teaches that the emission portion (50) is adjacent the base substantially near a center of the base and faces in the upward direction.
This reference has met all the limitations of the claims. This reference however does not teach explicitly that the emission portion is held by the base. Roberts et al teaches that the reflector (20) or the optical portion may comprise a symmetric curved shape, but it does not teach explicitly that the curve is a portion of a parabola.
Pu in the same field of endeavor teaches a device that is comprised of a base (Figures 3 and 4) having a cylindrical shape and disposed at bottom of the device, a laser module or a light source (4) serves as an emission portion that is held by the baes that emits image light along a predetermined axis. Pu further teaches that an optical portion comprising a reflection surface reflecting (33, Figure 15) the light from the emission portion having a rotationally symmetric shape around the predetermined axis and having a rotation surface and the reflection surface may comprise a parabolic shape, (please see column 2 line 50).
It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Pu to specifically make the emission portion or the projector be held by the base to explicitly make the emission portion or the projector be properly held as part of the image display device. Furthermore, the specific parabolic shape of the reflector of the optical portion would have the benefit of allowing the image light to be reflected in a desired manner.
Pu teaches that the optical portion having a rotation surface with a parabolic shape, but it does not teach explicitly that the rotation surface is obtained by rotating a parabola curve around the predetermined axis. However, this feature is considered to be a product-by-process limitation that does not differentiate the final rotation surface having parabolic shape of the prior art, (please see MPEP 2173.05 (p)).
These references further do not teach explicitly that the irradiation target is a transmissive mono-slant hologram screen such that light incident from the emission portion is diffracted by the interference pattern of the mono-slant hologram screen.
These references however do not teach explicitly that the irradiation target is a transmissive mono-slant hologram screen, (with regard to amendment to claim 1).
Liu et al in the same field of endeavor teaches an omnidirectional view display apparatus that is comprised of a holographic transmissive selective diffusing screen (24, Figure 14, please see paragraph [0046]) that the light incident from the emission portion (21, Figure 14) is diffracted by holographic transmissive diffusing screen and the holographic screen has a cylindrical shape with a diameter that may be modified to be equal or approximately equal to the diameter of a base and a central axis that is the same as the predetermined axis and is disposed over the circumference around the predetermined axis, (please see Figure 3 of Pu et al). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Liu et al to make the irradiation target a transmissive holographic selective diffusing screen (please see paragraph [0046]) to make the image light emitted from an inside of the transmissive selective holographic diffusing screen toward the outside while being diffused in various direction through the transmissive hologram.
The cited Liu et al reference does not teach explicitly that the transmissive selective holographic diffusing screen is a mono-slant hologram screen.
Kim et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a holographic screen that is a mono-slant holographic screen, (131, Figures 2A and 2B) wherein the holographic screen is being recorded and reproduced by a collimated reference light (Lr1) of a single incident direction or angle with respect to the holographic screen (131). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to specifically use art well-known mono-slanted hologram as holographic screen or irradiation target for the benefit of allowing irradiation only of specific incident angle may be diffracted by the holographic irradiation target to a specific diffraction direction to control the light emitted from the display device. It is implicitly true that since the holographic irradiation target is mono-slanted hologram, the light incident from the emission portion that is diffracted by the interference pattern of the mono-slant hologram screen is less than the image light reflected by the optical portion since the mono-slanted hologram only allows irradiation of specific incident angle be diffracted.
Claim 1 has been amended to include the phrase “the irradiation target is a transmissive hologram” and the phrase “hologram screen has a cylindrical shape with diameter that is equal or approximately equal to the diameter of the base”. Claim 1 has also been amended to include the phrase “the transmissive hologram comprises a transparent cylindrical base material with photosensitive material applied directly to the transparent base material”. This phrase is rejected under 35 USC 112, first paragraph, for the reasons set forth above.
Liu et al teaches that the irradiation target a transmissive holographic selective diffusing screen (24, please see paragraph [0046]). In light of the Pu et al the holographic transmissive diffusing screen and the holographic screen has a cylindrical shape with a diameter that may be modified to be equal or approximately equal to the diameter of a base and a central axis that is the same as the predetermined axis and is disposed over the circumference around the predetermined axis, (please see Figure 3 of Pu et al).
Liu et al teaches that the transmissive holographic selective diffusing screen has a cylindrical shape, (24, Figure 14) but it does not teach explicitly that the transmissive holographic selective diffusing screen comprises a transparent cylindrical base material with a photosensitive material applied directly to the transparent base material. It is known in the art that holographic element is typically recorded in a photosensitive material as demonstrated by Kim et al (please see paragraph [0027]). Robinson et al in the same field of endeavor also teaches that irradiation target comprises a cylindrical hologram (100) that may be directly applied to a cylindrical base (102, Figures 10-12). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Robinson et al to make the transmissive holographic selective diffusing screen has the specific layer structure to conform to the base of the display device.
With regard to claim 2, Roberts et al teaches the reflector (20, Figure 1) of the optical portion sets the incident angle of the image light on the irradiation target to be fixed, (please see Figure 1). Pu also teaches that the curved surface or the optical portion or reflective surface (33, Figure 15) sets the incident angle of the light that may be irradiating on the irradiation target to be substantially fixes.
With regard to claim 3, Roberts et al teaches that the conical reflector or the optical portion (20 or 48 Figures 1 and 3 of Roberts et al) includes a reflection surface that reflects the image light toward the irradiation target (18) wherein the image light having been emitted from the emission portion (16 Figure 1 or 50, Figure 3).
With regard to claims 4 and 5, Pu teaches reflection surface (33, Figure 15) may assume a parabolic shape wherein the cross-sectional shape of the reflective surface taken along a plane including the predetermined axis is configured to include a shape of a parabola that is concave when viewed from the emission portion (4). The axis of the parabola is different from the predetermined axis. With regard to claim 5, as shown in Figure 15, with regard to the reflection surface, the predetermined axis is parallel to the axis of the parabola included in the cross-sectional shape.
With regard to claims 7 and 8, Pu teaches, as shown in Figure 15, the reflection surface (33) includes a rotation surface obtained by rotating the parabola around the predetermined axis. With regard to claim 8, with regard to the reflection surface an intersection between the rotation surface and the predetermined axis is protruded when viewed from the emission portion (4).
With regard to claim 13, Roberts et al teaches that the irradiation target (18, Figure 1), is disposed over a circumference around the predetermined axis.
With regard to claim 14, Roberts et al teaches that the irradiation target is formed as a portion of the cylindrical pillar (18, Figure 1), which means the irradiation target is configured to have a cylindrical shape that use the predetermined axis as its substantially central axis.
With regard to claim 17, Roberts et al teaches that the irradiation target (18, Figure 1) emits the image light in a predetermined emission direction, the image light having been incident at the incident angle controlled by the optical portion (20).
With regard to claim 18, Roberts et al teaches that the irradiation target or the projection surface (18, Figure 1) includes an emission surface that emits the image light and the predetermined emission direction intersects with a normal direction of the emission surface at a predetermined intersection angle, (please see Figure 1).
With regard to claim 19, Kim et al teaches that holographic screen is fabricated by recording a diffuser (10) in the holographic screen which means the holographic screen has the function of diffusing and emitting image light. It is implicitly true that the predetermined intersection angle is set on a basis of a diffusing angle of the image light diffused by the irradiation target.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 8, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The newly amended claim has been fully considered and they are rejected for the reasons stated above.
Applicant’s arguments regard to the amendment to claim 1 has been fully considered and rejected for the reasons set forth above. The applicant is respectfully requested to properly address the 35 USC 112, first and second paragraphs rejections to the claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUDREY Y CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2309. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 9:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Stephone B Allen can be reached on 571-272-2434. 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.
AUDREY Y. CHANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/AUDREY Y CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872