DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) filed on 07/21/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and is/are being considered by the Examiner.
Response to Remarks
Applicant’s remarks (see pgs. 10-12), filed 09/30/2025, regarding the prior art rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C 102 and 103 have been fully considered but are moot upon further consideration because the new grounds of rejection in light of a change of statutory basis and/or in light of Matsumura et al.’s teachings are necessitated by the Applicant’s amendments (on 09/30/2025), as detailed below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claims 1, 16, 17, 18 limitation “a light transmitting member configured to transmit…” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. This is interpreted to correspond to a light guiding plate, optical fibers, or the like (FIG. 10: 50; ¶0083, ¶0105 of originally-filed specification). For purposes of prosecution, the Examiner will consider known equivalents.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsumura et al. (JP 2008058776 A).
The Examiner notes that the text of foreign references as cited throughout this Office Action are to the English translation retrieved from the Patent Translate feature of https://worldwide.espacenet.com and provided herewith.
Regarding Claim 1, Matsumura discloses: an image display apparatus (¶0010: an image display device), comprising: a first optical element configured to: receive a first light beam having a first wavelength; receive a second light beam having a second wavelength, wherein the second wavelength is different from the first wavelength (¶0044: the parallel light beams having each wavelength band (or wavelength)), and the first light beam and the second light beam are received simultaneously; collimate the first light beam and the second light beam; deflect the collimated first light beam as a third light at a first angle; and deflect the collimated second light beam as a fourth light beam at a second angle, wherein the second angle is different from the first angle; (¶0144-46: inclination angle Φ of the interference fringes 31 in the first diffraction grating member 30 which diffracts and reflects parallel light beams of the same wavelength changes from small to large; ¶0128: the parallel light beams r1-r3 travel through the light guide plate 21 at different positions based on their different total reflection angles α; ¶0056: a first diffraction grating member 30 made of a reflective volume hologram diffraction grating, which diffracts and reflects the light (group of parallel beams); ¶0055: a collimating optical system 12 that converts light emitted from each pixel of the image forming device 11 into a parallel beam; see FIG. 1, showing first and second light beams received by a first optical element 30+12 (collimated by 12), the third beam at a first angle different from a second angle of the fourth beam); a light transmitting member configured to transmit the third light beam and the fourth light beam, and the light transmitting member includes: a first surface from which the first light beam and the second light beam enter, and a second surface configured to support the first optical element and the second optical element (FIG. 1: 21; ¶0056: a light guide plate 21 extending along the Y direction, light propagates through the light guide plate 21 by total reflection and is incident on a first diffraction grating member 30 made of a reflective volume hologram diffraction grating; ¶0128: when a parallel light beam undergoes total reflection at the first surface 21A (the surface opposite the second surface 21B) of the light guide plate 21 and then undergoes total reflection at the second surface 21B (the surface of the light guide plate 21 on which the first diffraction grating member 30 and the second diffraction grating member 40 are arranged)); and a second optical element configured to: receive the third light beam and the fourth light beam; concentrate the third light beam at a first pupil location; and concentrate the fourth light beam at a second pupil location, wherein the first pupil location is different from the second pupil location (¶0056: a second diffraction grating member 40 made of a reflective volume hologram diffraction grating, which diffracts and reflects the light (group of parallel beams) so that the light is emitted from the light guide plate 21 and incident on the position of the observer's pupil 50 (pupil position) ¶0060: a plurality of different observation pupil positions; see FIG. 1 showing third and fourth light beams received by second optical element 40 and different pupil locations 50).
Regarding Claim 3, Matsumura discloses the image display apparatus according to Claim 1, as above. Matsumura further discloses: each of the first optical element and the second optical element has different wavelength selectivity (¶0123, 0156, 0187: diffraction grating members may be configured to have P types of interference fringes formed
(e.g., three types: red with a wavelength of 635 nm, green with a wavelength of 522 nm, and blue with a wavelength of 470 nm) having different wavelength bands (or wavelengths) that make up each parallel light beam; ¶0133: the interference fringes in the second diffraction grating member 40 satisfies the Bragg condition; ¶0004, 0006: A reflective volume hologram diffraction grating having interference fringes formed therein can change the direction of travel of incident and outgoing light rays through diffraction phenomena…since the wavelength at which the reflection volume hologram diffraction grating diffracts most strongly changes depending on the tilt angle φ of the interference fringes, the color distribution changes between pupil position a and pupil position b).
Regarding Claim 5, Matsumura discloses the image display apparatus according to Claim 1, as above. Matsumura further discloses: wherein each of the first and the second optical element is reflective (¶0011: a first and a second diffraction grating member made of reflective volume hologram diffraction gratings that diffracts and reflects the light).
Regarding Claim 6, Matsumura discloses the image display apparatus according to Claim 1, as above. Matsumura further discloses: wherein each of the first optical element and the second optical element is a hologram lens, and the hologram lens has a collimation function and a deflection function (¶0011, 0032, 0052, 0055: a collimating optical system that converts light emitted from each pixel of the image forming device into a parallel beam, and an optical device into which the light that has been converted into a parallel beam by the collimating optical system is incident, guided, and emitted…wherein the optical device comprises a first and a second diffraction grating member made of reflective volume hologram diffraction gratings that diffracts and reflects the light).
Regarding Claim 7, Matsumura discloses the image display apparatus according to Claim 1, as above. Matsumura further discloses: wherein each of the first optical element and the second optical element includes a first deflection reflection layer and a second deflection reflection layer, the first deflection reflection layer is a first reflective hologram, the second deflection reflection layer is a second reflective hologram, the first deflection reflection layer of the first optical element has deflection selectivity to the collimated first beam, and the second deflection reflection layer of has deflection selectivity of the first optical element has deflection selectivity to the collimated second light beam (FIG. 11: 130a-b; ¶0159, 0163-66, 0182: A group of light beams emitted from each pixel position of the image forming device 11 is collimated by the collimating optical system 12 and converted into a group of light beams consisting of parallel light beams traveling in different directions…diffraction grating member 130 is formed by stacking Q layers (Q=2 in Example 5) of diffraction grating layers 130a and 130b each made of a reflective volume hologram diffraction grating).
Regarding Claim 16, Matsumura discloses the image display apparatus according to Claim 1, as above. Matsumura further discloses: wherein the light transmitting member is further configured to receive, from the first optical element, the third light beam and the fourth light beam (see FIG. 1 showing light transmitting member 21 is further configured to receive from the first optical element 30 the third light beam and the fourth light beam via internal reflections therein).
Regarding Claim 17, Matsumura discloses: An image display apparatus, comprising: a first optical element including a plurality of deflection reflection layers, wherein each of the deflection reflection layers is a reflective hologram, each of the deflection reflection layers has a different diffraction characteristic to a specific incident angle of a specific beam, the plurality of deflection reflection layers includes a first deflection reflection layer and a second deflection reflection layer, the first deflection reflection layer is configured to receive a first light beam at a first angle; collimate the first light beam; and deflect the collimated first light beam as a third light beam at a second angle, the second deflection reflection layer is configured to receive a second light beam at a third angle; collimate the second light beam; and deflect the collimated second light beam as a fourth light beam at a fourth angle (FIGS. 9, 11: 130a-b; ¶0159, 0163-66, 0182: A group of light beams emitted from each pixel position of the image forming device 11 is collimated by the collimating optical system 12 and converted into a group of light beams consisting of parallel light beams traveling in different directions…diffraction grating member 130 is formed by stacking Q layers (Q=2 in Example 5) of diffraction grating layers 130a and 130b each made of a reflective volume hologram diffraction grating); a light transmitting member configured to transmit the third light beam and the fourth light beam; the first angle is different from the third angle and the second angle is different from the fourth angle; and a second optical element configured to: receive the third light beam and the fourth light beam from the light transmitting member; concentrate the third light beam at a first pupil location; and concentrate the fourth light beam at a second pupil location, wherein the first pupil location is different from the second pupil location, and the light transmitting member includes: a first surface from which the first light beam and the second light beam enter, and a second surface configured to support the first optical element and the second optical element (see rejection of claim 1 supra).
Regarding Claim 18, Matsumura discloses: An image display method, comprising: receiving, by a first optical element, a first light beam having a first wavelength; receiving, by the first optical element, a second light beam having a second wavelength, wherein the second wavelength is different from the first wavelength, and the first light beam and the second light beam are received simultaneously; collimating, by the first optical element, the first light beam and the second light beam; deflecting, by the first optical element, the collimated first light beam as a third light beam, wherein the third light beam is deflected at a first angle; deflecting, by the first optical element, the collimated second light beam as a fourth light beam, wherein the fourth light beam is deflected at a second angle, and the second angle is different from the first angle; transmitting, by a light transmitting member, the third light beam and the fourth light beam; receiving, by a second optical element, the third light beam and the fourth light beam from the light transmitting member; concentrating, by the second optical element, the third light beam at a first pupil location; and concentrating, by the second optical element, the fourth light beam at a second pupil location, wherein the first pupil location is different from the second pupil location and the light transmitting member includes: a first surface from which the first light beam and the second light beam enter, and a second surface configured to support the first optical element and the second optical element (see rejection of claim 1 supra).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumura et al. (JP 2008058776 A) in view of Kim et al. (US 2017/0336628 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Matsumura discloses the image display apparatus according to Claim 1, as above.
Matsumura does not appear to explicitly disclose: each of the first optical element and the second optical element has different polarization selectivity.
Kim is related to Matsumura with respect to an image display apparatus comprising a first and second optical element and four respective light beams as claimed, resulting in different pupil locations (para [0002]: head up display; paras [0036-37], [0067], [0085-86], [0094-95] & FIGS. 1-6) and Kim teaches: each of the first optical element and the second optical element includes the optical element having polarization selectivity (FIGS. 1-6 & para [0061]: a second path T2 in which the linearly polarized light in a second direction is incident on the polarizing reflection mirror 4 [first optical element]; para [0086]: the quarter wavelength phase delay unit 7 and the second reflection mirror 5 [second optical element] convert the linearly polarized light in a first direction transmitted through the polarizing reflection mirror 4 into the linearly polarized light in a second direction and then reflect the linearly polarized light in a second direction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the image display apparatus of Matsumura in view of Kim to satisfy the claimed condition because such polarization sensitive optical elements are known and selected to design a compact display system with less number of components needed to form images at different exit pupils, and to minimize light loss with the advantage that the brightness and power consumption of the image source is lowered, thereby reducing the size of a heat radiating portion which allows the heat of the image source 11 to be radiated, as taught in paragraphs [0004], [0009], [0052-54], [0170-73] of Kim.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumura et al. (JP 2008058776 A) in view of Tremblay et al. (US 2016/0033771 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Matsumura discloses the image display apparatus according to Claim 1, as above.
Matsumura does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein the first optical element is further configured to: receive a fifth light beam having a third wavelength, wherein the third wavelength is different from each of the first wavelength and the second wavelength; and deflect a sixth light beam at a third angle, wherein the sixth light beam corresponds to the fifth light beam, and the third angle different from each of the first angle and the second angle; and the second optical element is further configured to: receive the sixth light beam; and concentrate the sixth light beam at a third pupil location, wherein the third pupil location is different from each of the first pupil location and the second pupil location.
Tremblay is related to Matsumura with respect to an image display apparatus comprising a first and second optical element and four respective light beams as claimed, resulting in different pupil locations (¶ 0192-93, ¶0081; FIGS. 20 & 39), and Tremblay teaches: wherein the first optical element is further configured to: receive a fifth light beam having a third wavelength, wherein the third wavelength is different from each of the first wavelength and the second wavelength; and deflect a sixth light beam at a third angle, wherein the sixth light beam corresponds to the fifth light beam, and the third angle different from each of the first angle and the second angle; and the second optical element is further configured to: receive the sixth light beam; and concentrate the sixth light beam at a third pupil location, wherein the third pupil location is different from each of the first pupil location and the second pupil location (FIG. 20 & paragraphs [0179-180] of Tremblay: Light from a microdisplay 2002 within a projection module 2001 is projected through projection optics 2003 [first optical element], which consist of an arrangement of optical elements necessary to present light to the holographic element 204…three light field positions 2004 are shown projected from the projector [first, second, and fifth light beams]…after reflection from the multiplexed holographic reflector 204 [deflection lens element included in second optical element], three angularly separated beams 2005, 2006 and 2007 [third fourth and sixth light beams] form spatially separated exit pupils at the eye 209; para [0179]: microdisplay is used to project the different wavelengths of light onto the hologram to create multiple exit pupils; see FIG. 20 annotated and reproduced below showing first to sixth light beams L1-L6 satisfying the distinct emission angles as claimed with deflection element 204 that concentrates L3, L4, and L6 at three different exit pupil locations).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the image display apparatus of Matsumura in view of Tremblay to satisfy the claimed condition because such first and second optical elements are known and selected to produce collimated light with spatially separated multiple exit pupil arrangement toward the eye with low aberrations, as taught in paragraphs ¶0176, 0179-80 of Tremblay.
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 extension fee 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 SAMANVITHA SRIDHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-0082. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1700 (EST).
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 on 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.
/SAMANVITHA SRIDHAR/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872