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 .
The instant application having Application No. 17/692,223 filed on 3/11/2022 is presented for examination by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the communication filed 12/18/2025.
The amendment of claim 1, filed 12/18/2025, is acknowledged and accepted.
The cancellation of claims 3 and 4, filed 12/18/2025, is acknowledged and accepted.
Claims 1, 5, and 8-10 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Mimura’s concentric arrangement is not specified relative to the optical axis of the optical unit in a head-mounted display. However, Examiner argues that Mimura was not utilized to teach the limitation “located on an optical axis of the optical unit”, but instead Mogi was utilized to teach this limitation in paragraph 0046 which states “The light can be diffused at random by concentrically disposing the light shield portion 20 around the optical axis O on the optical element 10”.
Applicant additionally argues that Mogi utilizes diffraction in a technology in a different field from the technical field of view control in head-mounted displays. Examiner argues Mogi relates to an imaging optical system and an imaging apparatus which contains a light shield (20 “light shield portion”), whereas the instant application refers repeatedly to a louver which is defined in the specification as “a louver having a light shielding property”, thereby creating an overlap in the technical field of view between Mogi and the instant application. Additionally, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Mogi utilizes centers of the plurality of concentric arcs having different diameters are located on an optical axis of the optical unit in order to reduce the light flux corresponding to uneven intensity and improve image quality as shown in paragraph 0046.
Applicant further argues Yorita relates to a display such as one for use in a vehicle and that one of ordinary skill in the art would not turn to Yorita to attempt to remedy Karasawa’s deficiencies with respect to a head-mounted display. Examiner argues that Counsel's assertion that one of ordinary skill in the art would not turn to Yorita to attempt to remedy Karasawa’s deficiencies with respect to a head-mounted display is merely an argument unaccompanied by evidentiary support, and, thus, is insufficient to rebut Examiner's finding of obviousness. Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.”). MPEP §§ 2145, 716.01(c).
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.
Claims 1, 5, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karasawa (JP H1195160 A)(see attached machine translation)(Embodiment 5), in view of Mimura (JP 5093717 B2)(see attached machine translation), in view of Yorita (CN 102007434 A)(see attached machine translation), and further in view of Mogi (US 20190219789 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Karasawa discloses a head-mounted display, in at least Figure 7, comprising:
an optical unit (“image display means”) configured to direct display light emitted from a display panel (last paragraph on page 3 of translation states “According to a fifth aspect of the present invention, there is provided image display means for forming an image”) to an eye of a user (7 “eye”, Figure 7); and
a louver (34 “louver means”, Figure 7) disposed in an optical path of the display light from the optical unit toward the eye of the user (page 4, paragraph 4 of translation states “The light-shielding surface of the louver means has a direction substantially parallel to the optical axis direction”),
wherein the louver (34 “louver means”) comprises a light transmitting portion having a predetermined width (page 8, paragraph 11 of translation states “The distance between the light-shielding surfaces 35 is set so that, of the light incident from below the louver means 34, the light to be shielded does not enter the plane half mirror 5, and the light in the direction of the optical axis 37 is transmitted as much as possible”) and light shielding portions disposed so as to sandwich the light transmitting portion as viewed in an optical axis direction of the optical unit (page 8, paragraph 10 of translation states “The louver means 34 comprises a plurality of light-shielding surfaces 35 and a transparent cover sheet 36 for sandwiching the same”),
wherein each of the light shielding portions is arranged at a predetermined interval from each other (page 8, paragraph 11 of translation states “The distance between the light-shielding surfaces 35 is set so that, of the light incident from below the louver means 34, the light to be shielded does not enter the plane half mirror 5, and the light in the direction of the optical axis 37 is transmitted as much as possible”)
However, Karasawa does not disclose a plurality of circles having different diameters or a plurality of arcs having different diameters in a case where the louver is viewed from the optical axis direction of the optical unit, wherein in a cross section of the louver taken along a direction orthogonal to an optical axis direction of the optical unit, a width of each of the light shielding portions is 9% or less of an interval between the light shielding portions arranged with the light transmitting portion interposed therebetween, and wherein in a cross section of the louver taken along the optical axis direction of the optical unit, (1) the louver includes a first base portion having a concave and convex shape and a second base portion having a concave and convex shape fitted to the concave and convex shape of the first base portion, and (2) the light shielding portions are sandwiched between the first base portion and the second base portion, wherein the plurality of circles are a plurality of concentric circles having different diameters, wherein the plurality of arcs are a plurality of concentric arcs having different diameters, and wherein centers of the plurality of concentric circles having different diameters or centers of the plurality of concentric arcs having different diameters are located on an optical axis of the optical unit.
Mimura teaches a plurality of circles having different diameters or a plurality of arcs having different diameters in a case where the louver is viewed from the optical axis direction of the optical unit (page 9, paragraph 3 of translation states “In the micro louver shown in FIG. 13C, a plurality of circular light absorption layers 2 are concentrically arranged”) and wherein in a cross section of the louver taken along a direction orthogonal to an optical axis direction of the optical unit (see Figure 8(b) which shows arrows pointing along an optical axis), the light shielding portions arranged with the light transmitting portion interposed therebetween (see Figure 8 which shows 52 “mask” has a pattern corresponding to the spatial arrangement of the transparent layer and the light absorption layer of the micro louver), and wherein the plurality of circles are a plurality of concentric circles having different diameters (Figure 13C), and wherein the plurality of arcs are a plurality of concentric arcs having different diameters (page 9, paragraph 3 of translation states “The width of the transparent layer 3 between the adjacent circular light absorption layers 2 is wider in the central region of the microlouver in an arbitrary direction from the center of the microlouver to the peripheral region”).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the head-mounted display of Karasawa modified by a plurality of circles having different diameters or a plurality of arcs having different diameters in a case where the louver is viewed from the optical axis direction of the optical unit, and wherein the plurality of circles are a plurality of concentric circles having different diameters, and wherein the plurality of arcs are a plurality of concentric arcs having different diameters, as taught by Mimura, in order to allow for ease of manufacturing (page 9, paragraph 5 of translation – page 10, paragraph 3 of translation) and in order to control the viewing angle in any direction from the center (last paragraph on page 9 of translation)..
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the ratio of the widths of each light shielding portion to the interval between light shielding portions such that a width of each of the light shielding portions is 9% or less of an interval between the light shielding portions, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller 220 F.2d 454, 456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Yorita teaches wherein in a cross section of the louver (410 “optical component”, paragraph 0258, Figure 39) taken along the optical axis direction of the optical unit (Figure 40(E)), (1) the louver (410 “optical component”) includes a first base portion (412 “first prism array”, Figure 40(E)) having a concave and convex shape (Figure 40(E)) and a second base portion (414 “second prism array”, Figure 40(E)) having a concave and convex shape fitted to the concave and convex shape of the first base portion (412 “first prism array”, Figure 40(E) shows the concave and convex shapes of the first base portion and the second base portion are fitted together), and (2) the light shielding portions are sandwiched between the first base portion (412 “first prism array”) and the second base portion (414 “second prism array”, Figure 40(E) shows that L “light” incident upon 412b “first surface” and 414b “third surface” is reflected, so therefore 12b “first surface” and 414b “third surface” must be light shielding portions which are sandwiched between 412 “first prism array” and 414 “second prism array”).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the head-mounted display of Karasawa modified by wherein in a cross section of the louver taken along the optical axis direction of the optical unit, (1) the louver includes a first base portion having a concave and convex shape and a second base portion having a concave and convex shape fitted to the concave and convex shape of the first base portion, and (2) the light shielding portions are sandwiched between the first base portion and the second base portion, as taught by Yorita, in order to direct the path of the light depending on the incident angle of the light.
Mogi teaches wherein centers of the plurality of concentric circles having different diameters or centers of the plurality of concentric arcs having different diameters are located on an optical axis of the optical unit (paragraph 0046 states “The light can be diffused at random by concentrically disposing the light shield portion 20 around the optical axis O on the optical element 10 and by utilizing the light diffraction effect. This configuration can effectively reduce the light flux corresponding to the portion which causes the uneven intensity of the defocus image, and consequently successfully acquire the defocus image”, Figure 1).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the head-mounted display of Karasawa modified by wherein centers of the plurality of concentric circles having different diameters or centers of the plurality of concentric arcs having different diameters are located on an optical axis of the optical unit, as taught by Mogi, in order to reduce the light flux corresponding to uneven intensity and improve image quality (paragraph 0046).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Karasawa, Mimura, Yorita, and Mogi disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and Karasawa further discloses wherein the light shielding portions (35 “light-shielding surfaces”, Figure 8) are made of a light shielding material and are provided inside a plate-shaped base portion made of a light transmitting material (page 9, paragraph 1 of translation states “the thickness of the louver means 34 is determined by its aperture ratio and the set angle. However, since the louver means 34 has a substantially thin plate shape, a downward view is ensured and the feeling of opening and safety are maintained”).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Karasawa, Mimura, Yorita, and Mogi disclose all the limitations of claim 1, however Karasawa does not disclose wherein the width of each of the light shielding portions is 0.1 m or more and 45 m or less.
Mimura teaches wherein the width of each of the light shielding portions is 0.1 m or more and 45 m or less (page 6, paragraph 7 of translation states “The width (space) between the transparent layers is 10 μm to 20 μm” and page 6, paragraph 8 of translation states “a curable material 53 is filled between the transparent layers 3 of the patterned transparent photosensitive resin layer (FIG. 8D)”, Figure 8D).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the head-mounted display of Karasawa modified by wherein the width of each of the light shielding portions is 0.1 m or more and 45 m or less, as taught by Mimura, in order to achieve a more narrow viewing angle (page 3, paragraph 12 of translation).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Karasawa, Mimura, Yorita, and Mogi disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and Karasawa further discloses wherein the light shielding portions are formed of a light absorbing material or a light reflecting material (page 4, paragraph 4 of translation states “The light-shielding surface of the louver means has a direction substantially parallel to the optical axis direction formed by the virtual image and the user's eyes and is reflected by the partially transmitting / reflecting means in a direction of blocking external light in a direction incident on the user's eyes”, because the light-shielding layer is blocking the light, it must be made of material which either absorbs or reflects the light).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karasawa (JP H1195160 A)(see attached machine translation)(Embodiment 5), in view of Mimura (JP 5093717 B2)(see attached machine translation), in view of Yorita (CN 102007434 A)(see attached machine translation), in view of Mogi (US 20190219789 A1), and further in view of Usami (US 20080062846 A1).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Karasawa, Mimura, Yorita, and Mogi disclose all the limitations of claim 1, however Karasawa does not disclose wherein the interval between the light shielding portions is 500 m or more and 2000 m or less.
Usami teaches wherein the interval between the light shielding portions is 500 m or more and 2000 m or less (paragraph 0108 states “it is preferable for the arrangement interval among the light blocking plates to be 1 μm to 100 mm and more preferable that it be 10 μm to 10 mm, for example”).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the head-mounted display of Karasawa modified by wherein the interval between the light shielding portions is 500 m or more and 2000 m or less, as taught by Usami, in order to improve ease of manufacturing and prevent cost from increasing (paragraph 0109).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ALAINA M SWANSON whose telephone number is (703)756-5809. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7:30am-4:00pm.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached at 571-270-1284. 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.
/ALAINA MARIE SWANSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/WILLIAM R ALEXANDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872