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 .
Remark
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed on January 27, 2026, which has been entered into the file.
By this amendment, the applicant has amended claim 1.
Claims 6-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on March 27, 2024. It is noted that claim 6 does not read on the elected species A, Figure 1.
Claims 1-5 and 13-19 remain pending in this application.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 13-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the US patent application publication by Lechner et al (US 2011/0304824 A1) in view of the US patent application publication by Liu et al (US 2012/0147003 A1), patent application publication by Klose (US 2005/0157490 A1), and US patent issued to Abbott et al (PN. 5,999,281).
Claim 1 has been amended to necessitate the new grounds of rejection.
Lechner et al teaches, with regard to claim 1, an image display device that is comprised of a projection means (1, Figure 11) serve as the emission portion that emits image light at a predetermined angle of view with respect to a predetermined axis, a projection surface (2) serves as the cylindrical irradiation target (2, noted the cylindrical pillar 4, please see paragraph [0026]) disposed at least a part around the predetermined axis and having a central axis substantially identical to the predetermined axis, wherein the cylindrical irradiation target is transmissive, a mirror (3) serves as the optical portion that controls an incident angle of the image light on the irradiation target, the image light having been emitted from the emission portion the optical portion being disposed in a manner that the optical portion or the mirror faces the emission portion on a basis of the preterminal axis, wherein the optical portion includes a reflection surface that reflects the image light, (please see Figure 11). As shown in Figure 11, the cylindrical pillar (4) implicitly has a cylindrical base portion holding the emission portion (1), the irradiation target (2) and the optical portion (3), wherein a diameter of the cylindrical irradiation target is the same as the diameter of the cylindrical base portion.
This reference has met all the limitations of the claims. It however does not teach explicitly that the cylindrical irradiation target is a transmissive hologram diffusing element.
Liu et al in the same field of endeavor teaches an omnidirectional view three dimensional display apparatus with a projector (1, Figure 2) for projecting an image light that is reflected by a reflective surface (8) to irradiate an irradiation target or a cylindrical holographic selective diffusing screen, (4, please see paragraph [0019]). The holographic diffusing screen is a transmissive screen. It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Liu et al to modify the irradiation target to be a holographic diffusing screen for the benefit of allowing the illuminating light to be more effectively directed for the holographic element has specific direction selectivity.
Claim 1 also includes the phrase “the optical portion includes a reflective surface that reflects the image light in substantially parallel beam that are not horizontally directed and are not vertically directed”.
Lechner et al teaches that the mirror or the optical portion (3, Figure 11) may comprise a left concave curve and a right concave curve wherein the image light reflected by the concave mirror are light beams that are not horizontally directed and not vertically directed, (please see Figure 11. Lechner et al teach that the mirror may assume parabolic shape, (please see paragraph [0027]). This reference however does not teach that the reflected image beam are parallel beams.
Klose in the same field of endeavor teaches light illumination arrangement wherein a parabolic reflector (23, Figure 3) facing a light source (18) or an emission portion is capable to reflect the light from the emission portion to a parallel beam (LP) that are not horizontally directed and not vertically directed.
It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Klose to modify the image display device of Lechner et al to arrange the parabolic optical portion of Lechner et al to have the image light reflected by the parabolic optical portion forming a parallel beam for the benefit of allowing the target being illuminated by reflected parallel beam.
Claim 1 has been amended to include the phrase “the transmissive hologram comprises a transparent cylindrical base material with photosensitive material applied directly to the transparent base material”.
Liu et al teaches that the transmissive holographic diffusing screen (4, Figure 2) has a cylindrical shape. It however does not teach explicitly that it comprises a transparent cylindrical base material with photosensitive material applied directly to the transparent base material. Abbott et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a transmissive holographic diffuser (H1 or 100’, Figures 1 and 4) that is recorded in a photosensitive recording layer (110) wherein the photosensitive recording layer (110) is directly applied on a transparent cylindrical base material (210, please see Figure 4, please see column 14, lines 46-67). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Abbott et al to form the transparent holographic diffusing screen by applying a photosensitive recording layer, with the holographic diffuser recorded, directly on a transparent cylindrical base material.
With regard to claim 2, Lechner et al in light of Klose teaches that the reflective surfaces or the optical portion reflect the light to provide parallel light that sets the incident angle of the image light on the irradiation target to be fixed, (please see Figure 3) .
With regard to claim 3, Lechner et al in light of Liu et al and Klose teaches that the reflective surfaces reflect the image light toward the irradiation target or the hologram (2, Figure 11 of Lechner et al) that the image light having been emitted from the emission portion (1).
With regard to claims 4 and 5, Lechner et al in light of Klose teaches that the cross-sectional shape of the reflection surface (3, Figure 11 of Lechner et al and 23, Figure 3, of Klose) taken along a plane including the predetermined axis is configured to include a shape of a parabola that is concave when viewed from the emission portion. Lechner et al teaches that the cross section comprises a left concave curve and a right concave curve, and as shown in Figure 5, the axis of the parabola is parallel to and different from the predetermined axis.
With regard to claims 13-14, Lechner et al teaches that the irradiation target (2, Figure 11) is disposed over a circumference around the predetermined axis, (please see Figure 11). With regard to claim 14, Lechner et al teaches that the cylindrical irradiation target is configured to have a cylindrical shape that uses the predetermined axis as its central axis.
With regard to claim 15, Liu et al teaches the cylindrical transmissive selective diffusing screen is a holographic screen, (please see paragraph [0046]).
With regard to claim 16, Lechner et al in light of Liu et al teaches the irradiation targe may be a cylindrical transmissive selective diffusing screen, (please see paragraph [0046]), that transmits the image light.
With regard to claim 17, Lechner et al in light of Liu et al and Klose teaches that the irradiation target (2, Figure 11 of Lechner et al or 4, Figure 2, Liu et al) emits the image light in a predetermined emission direction that the image light having been incident at the incident angle controlled by the optical portion (3 of Lechner et al, 8, Liu et al or 23, Figure 3 of Klose).
With regard to claim 18, Lechner et al in light of Liu et al and Klose teaches that the irradiation target includes an emission surface that emits the image light and the predetermined emission direction interests with a normal direction of the emission surface at a predetermined angle, (please see Figure 11 of Lechner et al, and Figure 3 of Klose).
With regard to claim 19, Liu et al teaches that the irradiation target may be a transmissive holographic selective diffusing screen that is capable of diffusing an emitting the image light and the predetermined intersection angle is set on a basis of the diffusion angle of the image light diffused by the irradiation target.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on January 27, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The newly amended claim has been fully considered and are rejected for the reasons stated above.
Applicant’s arguments are mainly drawn to the newly amended features that have been fully addressed in the reasons for rejection set forth above.
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 AUDREY Y CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2309. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 9:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Stephone B Allen can be reached on 571-272-2434. 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.
AUDREY Y. CHANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/AUDREY Y CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872