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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 07/16/2025 has been entered. Claims 1 and 3-12 are now pending in the application. Previous Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph have been withdra93wn in light of Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 3-4,6 and 11 and further explanations and cancelation of claim 2.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Priority
As required by e M.P.E.P. 210, 214.03, acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on application Continuation of PCT/JP2021/006900 filed 02/24/2021 that claims foreign priority to JP 2020-097744, filed 06/04/2020 (Japan).
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
However, to overcome a prior art rejection, applicant(s) must submit a translation of the foreign priority papers in order to perfect the claimed foreign priority because said papers has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. See MPEP § 213.04
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
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, 3-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asai (of record, see IDS dated 11/30/2022) US 20180259773 A1 in view of Usukura et al. (hereafter Usukura, of record, see IDS dated 11/30/2022) US 20190285790 A1.
In regard to independent claim 1, Asai teaches (see Figs. 1-11) a display device for emitting an image light toward an eye-box of an observer (i.e. image display device 120, 220, 320 is used in a head-up display 100 emitting image light to eyebox 600 of observer 300, see Abstract, paragraphs [01,04-06, 22-34, 94-121], Figs. 13, 10-11) comprising:
a display panel that displays an image (display panel 115 displaying images, paragraphs [22-34, 94-121], e.g. Figs. 2, 10); and
a lighting device that emits a light toward the display panel (i.e. light sources 111, light guide plate 112, and associated elements emitting light towards 115, paragraphs [22-34, 94-121], e.g. Figs. 2, 10) , wherein the lighting device includes a light source that emits a light (source(s) 111, paragraphs [22-34, 94-121], e.g. Figs. 2, 10), a light guide panel on which a light from the light source is incident and including an emission surface that emits a light toward the display panel (light guide panel 112 with emission/output surface 1123 towards 115, paragraphs [22-34, 94-121], e.g. Figs. 2, 10),
a first optical member (light control member 114, paragraphs [22-34, 43, 94-121], e.g. Figs. 2, 10) disposed between the display panel (115) and the light guide panel (112, Figs. 2, 7, 10) and including an incident surface including a prism array provided on a surface opposing the emission surface of the light guide panel and an emission surface opposing the display panel (i.e. as 114 has prisms on surface opposite output surface of 112, and has output cylindrical lenses surface towards 112, paragraphs [22-34, 43, 94-121], e.g. Figs. 2, 10), and
a second optical member disposed between the display panel and the first optical member (light beam deflection member 119 between 115 and 114, paragraphs [22-34, 94-121], e.g. Figs. 10-11), provided with a Fresnel lens on a surface opposing the emission surface of the first optical member, and including an emission surface opposing the display panel (i.e. as 119 has concave, Fresnel lens on concave surface and output surface towards display 115, so that central portion and an end of transmission type display panel 115 differ from each other in an output angle of the light output from transmission type display panel 115, paragraphs [26, 94-121], e.g. Figs. 10-11, note paragraph [117] teaches “ Fresnel lens may be used as light beam deflection member 119. Therefore, a thinner lens can be provided”),
wherein a center of the Fresnel lens and a center of a transmissive region of the display panel are shifted from each other in a second direction orthogonal to a normal direction of the display panel given that center of front or back part of 119 is shifted from center of 115, in second direction e.g. in x or y axis direction, orthogonal to normal direction e.g. z-direction of display 115, paragraphs [94-121], e.g. Figs. 10-11), so that a fourth angle between the display panel and the emission surface of the light guide panel is smaller, as viewed in a first direction orthogonal to both the normal direction and the second direction (i.e. as view in other i.e. y or x direction, Figs. 2-3, 10,11A-B), than a fifth angle between the normal direction and a third direction of an optical path connecting the center of the transmissive region of the display panel toward a center of the eye-box (i.e. as light passing through center of 115 towards 600 as half of b1 or b2 angle i.e. fifth angle, is larger than zero angle i.e. fourth angle between 115 and 112 which are parallel, and due to 119 characteristics to deflect light towards 115 and virtual image optical system 500, see paragraphs [94-121], e.g. Figs. 10-11).
wherein as viewed in a first direction orthogonal to a normal direction of the display panel (as viewed in either x or y direction orthogonal to z direction normal to 115, Figs. 11A-11B), the Fresnel lens emit a light passing through a center of a transmissive region of the display panel in a direction inclined at a fifth angle with respect to the normal direction and bigger that a fourth angle between the display panel and the emission surface of the light guide panel (i.e. as light passing through center of 115 with half of b1 or b2 angle larger than zero angle between panel 115 and 112 emission surface which are parallel, and due to 119 characteristics to deflect light towards 115 and virtual image optical system 500, see paragraphs [94-121], e.g. Figs. 10-11). But Asai is silent that an optical center of the Fresnel lens (119) and the center of a transmissive region of the display panel (115) are shifted from each other in the second direction, and that the fifth angle is between normal direction and the third direction that is the optical path connecting the center of the transmissive region of the display panel toward a center of the eye-box (which is regarded as optical axis direction of the display device panel 115, such that the fifth angle is zero or near zero, given that normal of 115 and optical axis of 320 with 115 as shown in Figs. 11A-B, paragraphs [97-111]).
However, Usukura teaches in the same field of invention of a display device (see Figs. 2-16, abstract, paragraphs [5-19,37, 39-45, 72-84], and having similar base structure with display panel 11, source LEDs 13, light guide plate 15, prism sheet 17,18, Fresnel lens sheet 20, see Figs. 3, 12-16) and further teaches that silent that an optical center of the Fresnel lens (320, 29, Figs. 12-16) and the center of a transmissive region of the display panel (311,511, Figs. 12, 16) are shifted from each other in the second direction (i.e. 320, 29 asymmetric Fresnel lens sheet is offset from center of backlight device and display panel 311,511, see paragraphs [16-17, 72-77, 83-84], providing that the light is directed to the side of the less light emission angle range, and that the light is directed to the less light emission angle range, and that any positional deviation of the luminance angle distribution can be corrected by adjusting the offset amount, such that the asymmetric refraction effect is imparted to the light and the luminance unevenness is further hardly generated , paragraphs [16-17, 72-77, 83-84]), and that the fifth angle is between normal direction and the third direction that is the optical path connecting the center of the transmissive region of the display panel toward a center of the eye-box (i.e. given that the luminance angle distribution is shifted from 0 degrees to the side, the optical axis of the display and angle of the optical path of the light is changed from the center of display panel 311,511 towards they eye of observer, and doesn’t correspond to normal at 0 degrees, i.e. meaning that this fifth angle is larger than fourth angle which is zero as 311 is parallel to 315a of 315, as depicted in Figs. 12-13,16, paragraphs [72-77, 83-84).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt and modify the Fresnel lens (light deflection member) of the image display device of Asai to have the optical center of the Fresnel lens and the center of transmissive region of the display panel shifted from each other in the second direction according to teachings of Usukura, in order to provide that the light is directed to the side of the less light emission angle range, and that the light is directed to the less light emission angle range, and that any positional deviation of the luminance angle distribution can be corrected by adjusting the offset/shift amount, such that the asymmetric refraction effect is imparted to the light and the luminance unevenness is further hardly generated, (see Usukura, paragraphs [16-17, 72-77, 83-84]).
As a result of the combination, the combination also teaches and renders obvious that the fifth angle is between normal direction and the third direction that is the optical path connecting the center of the transmissive region of the display panel toward a center of the eye-box, and is larger than the fourth angle (i.e. as the offset shift is applied to Fresnel lens 119 of Asai, the luminance angle distribution is shifted from 0 degrees to the side, the optical axis of the display and angle of the optical path of the light is changed from the center of display panel 311,511 towards they eye of observer, and doesn’t correspond to normal at 0 degrees, i.e. meaning that this fifth angle is larger than fourth angle which is zero as 311 is parallel to 315a of 315, as depicted in Figs. 12-13,16, paragraphs [72-77, 83-84] of Usukura).
Regarding claim 3, Asai teaches (see Figs. 1-11) that the prism array includes a plurality of prisms arranged in the first direction (as 114 includes prism array with prisms arrayed in second y-direction, paragraphs [43-51, 55-57, 104-108], see details of Figs. 3, 10-11), and
the prism has two prism angles of two prism surfaces, each of the two prism angles being an angle between the emission surface and a corresponding one of the two prism surfaces (i.e. as prisms have side surfaces angles with emission surface near vertical angle, paragraphs [43-51, 57, 104-108], see details of Figs. 3, 10-11), the two prism angles being such that, as viewed in the second direction (presumably in x-direction or alternatively y-direction, Figs. 3, 9-11), a first angle between the display panel and the emission surface of the light guide panel is smaller than a second angle between the normal direction and a fourth direction of an optical path connecting the center of the transmissive region of the display panel toward the center of the eye-box. (i.e. as best understood given that side prism angles and vertical prism angles provide second emission angle e.g. b2, greater than (near) zero angle between 115 and 112, for optimal illuminance of center of eye-box 600 of observer 300, paragraphs [43-51, 57, 104-108], see details of Figs. 1, 3, 10-11, and due to combination with Usukura as luminance angle distribution is shifted from 0 degrees to the side, the optical axis of the display and angle of the optical path of the light is changed from the center of display panel towards they eye of observer, and doesn’t correspond to normal at 0 degrees, i.e. meaning that this angle is larger than angle between 311 and 315a of 315 which is zero, as depicted in Figs. 12-13,16, paragraphs [72-77, 83-84]).
Regarding claim 4, Asai teaches (see Figs. 1-11) that as viewed in the second direction (figs. 3, 9-11), when an emission angle of the light guide panel is y, the first angle is q1, the second angle is q2, one of the two prism angles defining an inclination of a prism surface of the prism on which a light from the light guide panel is incident is a, another one of the two prism angles is b, a third angle of a light actually emitted from the center of the transmissive region of the display panel with respect to the normal direction is q3, and a refractive index of the prism is n, following Formulas 1 to 4 as follows (i.e. as best understood given device’s geometry, light propagation Snell’s law, that side prism angles and vertical prism angles provide second emission angle e.g. b2, and angles around b2 for optimal illuminance of eye-box 600 of observer 300, paragraphs [43-51, 57, 104-108], see details of Figs. 1, 3, 10-11)
PNG
media_image1.png
93
380
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
12
308
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(i.e. as best understood given device’s recited structures, geometry, light propagation Snell’s law, that side prism angles and vertical prism angles provide second emission angles around b2, for optimal illuminance of eye-box 600 of observer 300, paragraphs [43-51, 57, 104-108], see details of Figs. 1, 3, 10-11, and small tolerances around q2, and given combination with Usukura see claims 1 and 3 above, and Figs. 12-13,16, paragraphs [72-77, 83-84], moreover because the structure of the claimed system, as identified above and in the original action, is the same as that claimed, it must inherently perform the same function of having light path with angles and their tolerances. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (The absence of a disclosure in a prior art reference relating to function did not defeat the Board’s finding of anticipation of claimed apparatus because the limitations at issue were found to be inherent in the prior art reference); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2114.)
Regarding claim 5, Asai teaches (see Figs. 1-11) that the second angle q 2 and the third angle q 3 are equal (i.e. as best understood given, device’s geometry, light propagation Snell’s law, that side prism angles and vertical prism angles provide second emission angle e.g. b2, and range around b2 includes b2 for optimal illuminance of eye-box 600 of observer 300, paragraphs [43-51, 57, 104-108], see details of Figs. 1, 3, 10-11, and small tolerances around q2 which can be zero, and given combination with Usukura see claims 1 and 3 above, and Figs. 12-13,16, paragraphs [72-77, 83-84], moreover because the structure of the claimed system, as identified above and in the original action, is the same as that claimed, it must inherently perform the same function of having light path with angles and their tolerances. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (The absence of a disclosure in a prior art reference relating to function did not defeat the Board’s finding of anticipation of claimed apparatus because the limitations at issue were found to be inherent in the prior art reference); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2114.
Regarding claim 6, Asai teaches (see Figs. 1-11) that when, as viewed in the first direction (presumably in y-direction or alternatively x-direction, Figs. 3, 9-11), the fourth angle is p4, the fifth angle is p5, a sixth inclination angle of a light actually emitted from the center of the transmissive region of the display panel with respect to the normal direction is p6, a focal length of the Fresnel lens is F, and a shift amount between the center of the transmissive region of the display panel and the center of the Fresnel lens is D, following Formulas 5 and 6 as follows (i.e. as best understood given then focal length of 119 and position with respect to center 115, angle of 115 with 112, given device’s geometry, light propagation Snell’s law, device provides emission angle e.g. b1, and angles around b1 for optimal illuminance of eye-box 600 of observer 300, paragraphs [43-51, 57, 96, 104-108, 113-119], see details of Figs. 1, 3, 10-11).
.
PNG
media_image3.png
50
355
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(i.e. as best understood given then focal length of 119 and position with respect to center 115, angle of 115 with 112, given device’s recited structure, geometry, light propagation Snell’s law, device provides emission angle e.g. b1, and angles around b1 for optimal illuminance of eye-box 600 of observer 300, paragraphs [43-51, 57, 96, 104-108, 113-119], see details of Figs. 1, 3, 10-11, and small tolerances around p5, and given combination with Usukura see claim 1 above, and Figs. 12-13,16, paragraphs [72-77, 83-84], moreover because the structure of the claimed system, as identified above and in the original action, is the same as that claimed, it must inherently perform the same function of having light path with angles and their tolerances. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (The absence of a disclosure in a prior art reference relating to function did not defeat the Board’s finding of anticipation of claimed apparatus because the limitations at issue were found to be inherent in the prior art reference); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2114.)
Regarding claim 7, Asai teaches (see Figs. 1-11) that the fifth angle p5 and the sixth angle p6 are equal (i.e. as best understood given then focal length of 119 and position with respect to center 115, angle of 115 with 112, given device’s geometry, light propagation Snell’s law, device provides emission angle e.g. b1, and range angles around b1 that include b1, for optimal illuminance of eye-box 600 of observer 300, paragraphs [43-51, 57, 96, 104-108, 113-119], see details of Figs. 1, 3, 10-11, and small tolerances around p5 which can be zero, and given combination with Usukura see claims 1 and 3 above, and Figs. 12-13,16, paragraphs [72-77, 83-84], moreover because the structure of the claimed system, as identified above and in the original action, is the same as that claimed, it must inherently perform the same function of having light path with angles and their tolerances. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (The absence of a disclosure in a prior art reference relating to function did not defeat the Board’s finding of anticipation of claimed apparatus because the limitations at issue were found to be inherent in the prior art reference); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2114.
Regarding claim 8, Asai teaches (see Figs. 1-11) that the display panel is disposed parallel to the emission surface of the light guide panel (i.e. as 115 is parallel to output surface of 112, e.g. see paragraphs [94-121, 35], e.g. Figs. 3, 10-11).
Regarding claim 9, Asai teaches (see Figs. 1-11) a head-up display comprising the display device according to claim 1 (i.e. as image display device 120, 220, 320 is part of head-up display 100, see Abstract, paragraphs [01,04-06, 22-34, 94-121], Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Asai teaches (see Figs. 1-11) a mobile object (vehicle 200, Fig. 1, paragraphs [22, 150]) comprising: the head-up display according to claim 9; and a windshield on which an image output from the head-up display is projected (i.e. as image display device 120, 220, 320 is part of head-up display 100 of a vehicle 200 where image, virtual image 400, output windshield 230 , see Abstract, paragraphs [01, 22-34, 94-121], Fig. 1).
In regard to independent claim 11, Asai teaches (see Figs. 1-11) a display device (i.e. mage display device 120, 220, 320 is used in a head-up display 100, see Abstract, paragraphs [01,04-06, 22-34, 94-121]) comprising:
a display panel that displays an image (display panel 115 displaying images, paragraphs [22-34, 94-121], e.g. Figs. 2, 10); and
a lighting device that emits a light toward the display panel (i.e. light sources 111, light guide plate 112, and associated elements emitting light towards 115, paragraphs [22-34, 94-121], e.g. Figs. 2, 10) , wherein the lighting device includes a light source that emits a flat light toward the display panel (source(s) 111, paragraphs [22-34, 94-121], e.g. Figs. 2, 10, and as flat light guide panel 112 with flat emission/output surface 1123 towards 115, paragraphs [22-34, 94-121], e.g. Figs. 2, 10),
a first optical member (light control member 114, paragraphs [22-34, 43, 94-121], e.g. Figs. 2, 10) disposed between the display panel (115) and the light source (112, Figs. 2, 7, 10) and an incident surface including an incident surface on which a light from the light source is incident and an emission surface opposing the display panel (i.e. as 114 has prisms on incident surface opposite source e.g. output surface of 112, and has output cylindrical lenses surface towards 112, paragraphs [22-34, 43, 94-121], e.g. Figs. 2, 10), and
a second optical member disposed between the display panel and the first optical member (light beam deflection member 119 between 115 and 114, paragraphs [22-34, 94-121], e.g. Figs. 10-11), provided with a Fresnel lens on a surface opposing the emission surface of the first optical member, and including an emission surface opposing the display panel (i.e. as 119 has concave, Fresnel lens on concave surface and output surface towards display 115, so that central portion and an end of transmission type display panel 115 differ from each other in an output angle of the light output from transmission type display panel 115, paragraphs [26, 94-121], e.g. Figs. 10-11, nete paragraph [117] teaches “ Fresnel lens may be used as light beam deflection member 119. Therefore, a thinner lens can be provided”),
wherein a center of the Fresnel lens and a center of a transmissive region of the display panel are shifted from each other in a second direction orthogonal to a normal direction of the display panel given that center of front or back part of 119 is shifted from center of 115, in second direction e.g. in x or y axis direction, orthogonal to normal direction e.g. z-direction of display 115, paragraphs [94-121], e.g. Figs. 10-11), so that a fourth angle between the display panel and the emission surface of the light guide panel is smaller, as viewed in a first direction orthogonal to both the normal direction and the second direction (i.e. as view in other i.e. y or x direction, Figs. 2-3, 10,11A-B), than a fifth angle between the normal direction and a third direction of an optical path connecting the center of the transmissive region of the display panel toward a center of the eye-box (i.e. as light passing through center of 115 towards 600 as half of b1 or b2 angle i.e. fifth angle, is larger than zero angle i.e. fourth angle between 115 and 112 which are parallel, and due to 119 characteristics to deflect light towards 115 and virtual image optical system 500, see paragraphs [94-121], e.g. Figs. 10-11).
wherein as viewed in a first direction orthogonal to a normal direction of the display panel (as viewed in either x or y direction orthogonal to z direction normal to 115, Figs. 11A-11B), the Fresnel lens emit a light passing through a center of a transmissive region of the display panel in a direction inclined at a fifth angle with respect to the normal direction and bigger that a fourth angle between the display panel and the emission surface of the light guide panel (i.e. as light passing through center of 115 with half of b1 or b2 angle larger than zero angle between panel 115 and 112 emission surface which are parallel, and due to 119 characteristics to deflect light towards 115 and virtual image optical system 500, see paragraphs [94-121], e.g. Figs. 10-11). But Asai is silent that an optical center of the Fresnel lens (119) and the center of a transmissive region of the display panel (115) are shifted from each other in the second direction, and that the fifth angle is between normal direction and the third direction that is the optical path connecting the center of the transmissive region of the display panel toward a center of the eye-box (which is regarded as optical axis direction of the display device panel 115, such that the fifth angle is zero or near zero, given that normal of 115 and optical axis of 320 with 115 as shown in Figs. 11A-B, paragraphs [97-111]).
However, Usukura teaches in the same field of invention of a display device (see Figs. 2-16, abstract, paragraphs [5-19,37, 39-45, 72-84], and having similar base structure with display panel 11, source LEDs 13, light guide plate 15, prism sheet 17,18, Fresnel lens sheet 20, see Figs. 3, 12-16) and further teaches that silent that an optical center of the Fresnel lens (320, 29, Figs. 12-16) and the center of a transmissive region of the display panel (311,511, Figs. 12, 16) are shifted from each other in the second direction (i.e. 320, 29 asymmetric Fresnel lens sheet is offset from center of backlight device and display panel 311,511, see paragraphs [16-17, 72-77, 83-84], providing that the light is directed to the side of the less light emission angle range, and that the light is directed to the less light emission angle range, and that any positional deviation of the luminance angle distribution can be corrected by adjusting the offset amount, such that the asymmetric refraction effect is imparted to the light and the luminance unevenness is further hardly generated , paragraphs [16-17, 72-77, 83-84]), and that the fifth angle is between normal direction and the third direction that is the optical path connecting the center of the transmissive region of the display panel toward a center of the eye-box (i.e. given that the luminance angle distribution is shifted from 0 degrees to the side, the optical axis of the display and angle of the optical path of the light is changed from the center of display panel 311,511 towards they eye of observer, and doesn’t correspond to normal at 0 degrees, i.e. meaning that this fifth angle is larger than fourth angle which is zero as 311 is parallel to 315a of 315, as depicted in Figs. 12-13,16, paragraphs [72-77, 83-84).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt and modify the Fresnel lens (light deflection member) of the image display device of Asai to have the optical center of the Fresnel lens and the center of transmissive region of the display panel shifted from each other in the second direction according to teachings of Usukura, in order to provide that the light is directed to the side of the less light emission angle range, and that the light is directed to the less light emission angle range, and that any positional deviation of the luminance angle distribution can be corrected by adjusting the offset/shift amount, such that the asymmetric refraction effect is imparted to the light and the luminance unevenness is further hardly generated, (see Usukura, paragraphs [16-17, 72-77, 83-84]).
As a result of the combination, the combination also teaches and renders obvious that the fifth angle is between normal direction and the third direction that is the optical path connecting the center of the transmissive region of the display panel toward a center of the eye-box, and is larger than the fourth angle (i.e. as the offset shift is applied to Fresnel lens 119 of Asai, the luminance angle distribution is shifted from 0 degrees to the side, the optical axis of the display and angle of the optical path of the light is changed from the center of display panel 311,511 towards they eye of observer, and doesn’t correspond to normal at 0 degrees, i.e. meaning that this fifth angle is larger than fourth angle which is zero as 311 is parallel to 315a of 315, as depicted in Figs. 12-13,16, paragraphs [72-77, 83-84 of Usukura).
Regarding claim 12, Asai teaches (see Figs. 1-11) a head-up display comprising the display device according to claim 11 (i.e. as image display device 120, 220, 320 is part of head-up display 100, see Abstract, paragraphs [01,04-06, 22-34, 94-121], Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, Asai teaches (see Figs. 1-11) a mobile object (vehicle 200, Fig. 1, paragraphs [22, 150]) comprising: the head-up display according to claim 12; and a windshield on which an image output from the head-up display is projected (i.e. as image display device 120, 220, 320 is part of head-up display 100 of a vehicle 200 where image, virtual image 400, output windshield 230 , see Abstract, paragraphs [01, 22-34, 94-121], Fig. 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed in the Remarks dated 07/16/2025 with respect to claims 1 and 11 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 MARIN PICHLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4015. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am -5:00pm.
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, Thomas K Pham can be reached on (571)272-3689. 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.
/MARIN PICHLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights