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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 14 October, 2025 has been fully considered and entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 14 October, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “light ray(s) that passed through the lens, and not before, form divergent light rays”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Additionally, Examiner notes that the claim language which Applicant attempts to equate to this feature (“at least one light ray among the plurality of light rays that has passed through the lens forms a plurality of divergent light rays with different angles relative to the lens”) raises issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as noted below, and does not mean the same thing as the light not being divergent before passing through the lens and only becoming divergent after passing through the lens.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1: It is unclear what is meant by “at least one light ray among the plurality of light rays that has passed through the lens forms a plurality of divergent light rays with different angles relative to the lens”. A light ray is just a simplified representation of a light path or general direction of light propagation in a given region, which could be for example a central ray or just any exemplary path, so it is not clear what it would mean for one light ray to form a plurality of light rays. Further, if the light ray is representative of a particular light path, it would not make sense for light traveling along a particular path through an ordinary lens to form a plurality of divergent light rays, since light is ordinarily emitted from a lens in a direction based on its incidence angle and position. Light traveling along one path would be emitted along one path, and thus not form a plurality of divergent rays. For the purpose of examination, Examiner is interpreting that the claimed lens works like an ordinary lens where the ray of light passing through continues as a single ray of light, not a plurality of divergent light rays.
Regarding claims 2-4, 6, and 14-18: Dependent claims 2-4, 6, and 14-18 inherently contain the deficiencies of any base or intervening claims.
Note: The following rejections are based upon the claims as best understood by Examiner.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Muenz (US 2020/0225475; hereinafter Muenz).
Regarding claim 1: Muenz disclosesA display device (Fig. 10), comprising: a light guide body (Fig. 10, light guide 1), with the display device displaying an image of light emitted from the light guide body (see paragraph 0067), and an image light emitter (Fig. 10, image generator 15 and correction element 17) that outputs image light to the light guide body, wherein the light guide body is of a curved shape (Fig. 10 shows this), and includes a light guide plate (Fig. 10, light guide 1 is a light guide plate) and an optical element (see paragraphs 0047-0050 and Figs. 2 and 4, optical element includes diverging structure, output coupling structure 13, and input coupling structure 3) embedded lengthwise within the light guide body that diffracts and emits light propagating inside the light guide plate (see paragraph 0050), the image light emitter includes an emission surface portion that outputs the image light (Fig. 10, image generator 15) and a lens that diverges the image light emitted from the emission surface portion (Fig. 10, refractive optical element 19 is a lens and it outputs divergent light, as shown in Fig. 10), the optical element within the light guide body includes an emission optical element (Fig. 10, output coupling structure 13) and an incidence optical element (Fig. 10, input coupling structure 3), the incidence optical element being aligned with the image light emitter to receive the outputted image light (Fig. 3 shows this), an angle of the optical element relative to a propagation direction in which the light propagates inside the light guide plate is constant irrespective of where in the optical element (light propagating within the light guide plate follows the radius of curvature of the light guide plate, as do the diffractive lens 11, the input coupling structure 3, and the output coupling structure 13, as the gratings are features along the surface of the light guide plate and the diffraction lens is formed by alternatively arranging ring-shaped zones within the light guide plate; therefore, the angle of the optical element relative to a propagation direction in which the light propagates inside the light guide plate is constant irrespective of where in the optical element), the light guide body includes a front surface (Fig. 10, concave surface facing input and output light) and a rear surface (Fig. 10, convex surface facing away from the input and output light), the rear surface having a curvature radius greater than a curvature radius of the front surface (see paragraph 0020, the front surface and the rear surface can only share a center of curvature if the rear surface has a greater radius of curvature than the front surface, since it is located farther away from the shared center of curvature),the light comprising a plurality of light rays (Fig. 10 depicts a plurality of light rays), the plurality of light rays is a divergent light with different angles relative to the lens (Fig. 10 shows this), and at least one light ray among the plurality of light rays that has passed through the lens forms a plurality of divergent light rays with different angles relative to the lens (as discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above, it is understood that the lens is an ordinary lens and that a single ray of light continues to be a single ray of light after passing through the lens; Fig. 10 depicts a divergent light beam after the light has passed through the lens), and the image light emitter irradiates the divergent light at the front surface (Fig. 10 shows this).
Regarding claim 2: Muenz disclosesThe display device according to claim 1 (as applied above), wherein the light guide body has a cross section that is arc-shaped (Fig. 10 shows that light guide 1 has an arc-shaped cross-section; also see paragraph 0015).
Regarding claim 3: Muenz disclosesThe display device according to claim 1 (as applied above), wherein an emission angle of the light emitted from the optical element varies depending on a region of the optical element from which the light is emitted (see paragraphs 0019 and 0020; the diverging structure provides this feature; when the image is at infinity/the light emerging is parallel, the emission angle of the light relative to the optical element varies depending on a region of the optical element from which light is emitted).
Regarding claim 4: Muenz disclosesThe display device according to claim 3 (as applied above), wherein rays of light emitted from the optical element are approximately parallel to each other (see paragraphs 0019-0020; when the image is at infinity, the light rays are approximately parallel to each other).
Regarding claim 6: Muenz disclosesThe display device according to claim 1 (as applied above), wherein the image light enters the light guide body at a fixed angle relative to the front surface or the rear surface of the light guide body (the angle is fixed by the positioning of the image generator 15, the corrective elements 19, and the front surface or rear surface of light guide body 1).
Regarding claim 14: Muenz disclosesThe display device according to claim 1 (as applied above), whereinthe lens is disposed to face the front surface of the light guide body (Fig. 10 shows this, wherein, as noted above, the front surface is the concave surface of the light guide body), and the divergent light diverged by the lens is incident on the front surface of the light guide body (Fig. 10 shows this).
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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muenz (US 2020/0225475; hereinafter Muenz) in view of Masson (US 2018/0321736; hereinafter Masson).
Muenz discloses the display device according to claim 1, as applied above. Muenz further teaches that the incidence optical element is included in the light guide body and is curved along the curved shape of the light guide body (Fig. 7 shows incidence optical element 3 included in the light guide body and curved along the curved shape of the light guide body). Muenz fails to teach that the incidence optical element has an area larger than an area of a surface of the emission surface portion and covers the surface of the emission surface portion. However, Masson, also related to displays including curved light guides (see paragraph 0002 and Fig. 1), teaches an incidence optical element (Fig. 1, coupling HOE 108) has an area larger than an area of a surface of the emission surface portion (Fig. 1, front surface of projector 104), and covers the surface of the emission surface portion (Fig. 1 shows this). As this was a known suitable arrangement for an image generator/projector and an element for coupling image light into a curved waveguide, 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 Muenz device to include these features taught by Masson, in applications where it is desired to have a more compact projector. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to modify the device to adjust the location of the projector/image generator relative to the incidence optical element based on the spatial constraints in their particular application.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muenz (US 2020/0225475; hereinafter Muenz) in view of Jarvenpaa et al. (WO 2020/136306; hereinafter Jarvenpaa; copy provided by Examiner with this Office Action).
a. Regarding claim 16: Muenz discloses the display device of claim 1, as applied above. Muenz fails to teach that the light guide body directs emission of the image light towards a windshield disposed at a predetermined angle. However, Jarvenpaa teaches a light guide body for a vehicle display which is configured to direct emission of image light towards a windshield disposed at a predetermined angle (see Fig. 4A; see Technological Field; see also page 7, lines 17-30). Since it was known that a light guide body could be used to project an image onto a windshield, in order to project a virtual image to a user, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the Muenz waveguide to a vehicle display system having the general configuration taught by Jarvenpaa.
b. Regarding claim 17: Modified Muenz teachesThe display device according to claim 16 (as applied above), wherein the windshield reflects the image light to display a display image as a virtual image in front of the windshield (see Jarvenpaa Fig. 4 and page 7, lines 17-30).
c. Regarding claim 18: The display device according to claim 17 (as applied above), wherein the curved shape of the light guide body is structured to reflect extraneous light other than the image light to a location different from a user’s eyes (the curved Muenz waveguide has the structure to do this; for example light reflected off of the back surface of the light guide body, which is extraneous light other than the image light, would be projected to a location different from a user’s eye).
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 Kirsten D Endresen whose telephone number is (703)756-1533. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday.
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, Thomas Hollweg can be reached at (571)270-1739. 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.
/KIRSTEN D. ENDRESEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874