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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments, see Amendment, filed 3/27/2026, with respect to the claims have been fully considered.
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 and 4-13 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the incident light" in line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Furthermore, it is unclear what is meant by incident light and what light is being referred to. The claim references “scattered light”, “the received light”, “the diffracted light”, etc. However, the claim does not reference or describe incident light in any way including light being incident on any surface.
Claim 1 has been amended to include “additional diffraction of the incident light does not occur”. This statement appears to be contradictory with what is being claimed, since the claim language requires “a first optical element disposed on one surface or other surface of the light guide so that the scattered light is received and guided on the light guide, and configured to diffract the received light”. It is unclear how no additional diffraction can occur when the light is passing through diffracting elements.
Examiner notes that while paragraphs [0026] and [0056] of the instant Specification provide context for the amendment, limitations from the Specification shall not be imported into the claims. Because the newly amended claim language is directly contradictory with what has already been claimed, the newly added limitation will not be further examined.
Claim(s) 4 and 4-13 depend upon claim 1 and therefore carry the same deficiencies.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CA 3084314 A1 Blomstedt et al. (herein “Blomstedt”, cited on the attached PTO-892).
Regarding claim 1, Blomstedt discloses:
A part for a display device (waveguide display element; title; see Figures 1F and 2A), comprising:
a light scattering unit (mirror 12/22; see Figures 1-3) configured to scatter light, and
a light guide unit configured to expand the scattered light in a given direction,
wherein the light guide unit (20/30) comprises:
a light guide (waveguide layers 14A/24A, 14B/24B, 14C/24C) configured to guide the light;
a first optical element (in-coupling gratings of input pupils 16A/26A, 16B/26B, 16C/26C) disposed on one surface or other surface of the light guide so that the scattered light is received and guided on the light guide, and configured to diffract the received light; and
a second optical element (out-coupling grating 18) disposed on the one surface or the other surface of the light guide (14A/24A, 14B/24B, 14C/24C) and configured to receive the light diffracted by the first optical element 16A/26A, 16B/26B, 16C/26C) and guided through the light guide, partially diffract the received light and output the diffracted light from the one surface or the other surface of the light guide,
wherein the scattered light, expanding as it scatters from the light scattering unit (12/22), is directly input into the first optical element,
wherein each of the first optical element and the second optical element comprises a diffraction grid pattern (diffraction gratings) in which a high refraction unit and a low refraction unit are alternately disposed in a first direction (diffraction gratings are inherently defined by alternating high and low refractive index regions),
wherein the light scattering unit (12/22) is a diffuser configured to scatter the light in an oval shape (shape of an ellipse) at a given angle in the first direction (see Figures 1F and 2A; see page 5, lines 21-27).
Regarding claim 4, Blomstedt discloses the light scattering unit is a diffuser configured to scatter the light in a second direction which is a length direction of the diffraction grid pattern in a direction perpendicular to the first direction (see Figures 1F and 2A; see page 5, lines 21-27).
Regarding claim 9, Blomstedt discloses the second optical element is configured to increase diffraction efficiency by the diffraction grid pattern in the first direction (see Figures 1F and 2A; see page 6, lines 22-27).
Regarding claim 10, Blomstedt discloses each of the first optical element and the second optical element is a holographic optical element or a diffraction optical element (see Abstract).
Regarding claim 11, Blomstedt discloses display device comprising: the part for the display device according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1); and a light output unit configured to output light so that the light is radiated to the light scattering unit of the part for the display device (see Abstract).
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(s) 5-8, 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CA 3084314 A1 Blomstedt et al. (herein “Blomstedt”, cited on the attached PTO-892).
Regarding claim 5 and 6, Blomstedt is silent as to the light scattering unit scatters the light at a maximum scattering angle of 0.5° to 3° in the first direction and a maximum scattering angle of 3° to 20° in the second direction relative to a radiation direction of the light. However, Blomstedt demonstrates possession of the knowledge of how light scatters and how angles impact the travel path of light (see, e.g., p. 5, lines 21-31). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to optimize the scattering angles of the light so as to ensure optimal light propagation.
Regarding claim 7, Blomstedt is silent as to the light scattering unit scatters the light in the first direction and the second direction, and a maximum scattering angle of the light scattered in the first direction and a maximum scattering angle of the light scattered in the second direction satisfy Equation 1 below: [Equation 1] 3 < the maximum scattering angle of the light scattered in the second direction / the maximum scattering angle of the light scattered in the first direction < 10. However, Wall demonstrates possession of the knowledge of how light scatters and how angles impact the travel path of light (see, e.g., p. 5, lines 21-31). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to optimize the ratio of scattering angles of the light so as to ensure optimal light propagation.
Regarding claims 8 and 13, Blomstedt discloses the light scattering unit is partially transmissive (see p. 4, lines 7-8), but is silent as to the transmissivity of the light scattering unit being more than 80% and less than 100%, and an area of a portion from which the light is outputted by the light output unit is more than 1 cm2 and less than 10 cm2. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the transmissivity of the light scattering unit be more than 80% and less than 100% and an area of a portion from which the light is outputted by the light output unit is more than 1 cm2 and less than 10 cm2, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Optimizing the transmissivity and output for the desired use of the HUD would require only routine skill in the art and would result in a better display device.
Regarding claim 12, Blomstedt is silent as to the light output unit comprises a liquid crystal display panel or an organic light-emitting diode display panel. Blomstedt discloses the device can be used in AR, VR, and MR devices including NEDs, HMDs, and HUDs (p. 8, lines 14-17). A person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention would know and understand that these types of display devices very commonly use liquid crystal displays or organic light-emitting diode displays. These materials are well known in the art with known properties and are regularly used in display devices.
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 MARY A EL-SHAMMAA whose telephone number is (571)272-2469. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9am-6pm (flexible schedule).
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.
/MARY A EL-SHAMMAA/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights