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 .
1. Claims 1-18 are pending.
Foreign Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Warning
Applicant is advised that should claims 1-9 be found allowable, claims 10-18 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
2. Claims 1 & 10 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.
3. In independent claims 1 and 10, The term “close to” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close to” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically, the use of the term, “close to” in defining the distance or spacing between the diverging element and the display panel is indefinite.
4. Dependent claims 2-9 and 11-18 fail to remedy this issue, thus are summarily rejected under 35 USC 112 (b).
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.
5. Claims 1-8 & 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pryor (US 20080211779 A1), in view of Wassvik (US 20230057020 A1).
6. Regarding Claims 1 & 10: Pryor teaches a display panel, ([0076]: "Reconfigurable Tactile Display " (or "RTD")). Pryor teaches a cover plate, disposed on a display side of the display panel, [Fig 2; 0204]
Pryor teaches a receiving module, configured to receive reflected light that is formed by a detection target through reflecting light diverged by the diverging element, ([0280]: In a first case, the tip 301 of finger 300 in contact with the screen 302 is front illuminated through the screen using light 315 from the projector 310 (or optionally by a separate source such as IR LED's 316 (dotted lines) located behind the screen, whose light, like that of the projector, passes through the screen from the rear. The reflected light 320 from the finger (primarily from the tip 301 in contact with the screen), is sensed through the screen by the camera 305 as shown).
Pryor does not teach, a diverging element, located on a side of the cover plate close to the display panel, wherein the diverging element is disposed in a non-display region of the cover plate and is configured to diverge received light and emit diverged light.
However, Wassvik teaches an interactive display, ([0040]: In some examples, the emitters 404 are arranged on a substrate (not shown), and light from the emitters 404 travel above the touch surface 408 of a panel 402 mounted in a frame housing 426 via reflection or scattering on an edge reflector 420 or diffusor). Figure 4 shows element 420 disposed in a non-display region of the cover plate.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Pryor with Wassvik to include a diverging element disposed in a non-display region of the cover plate since, it is the same field of endeavor and results would have been predictable.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to modify Pryor with Wassvik since, placing the diverging element in a non-display region of cover plate allows for the full display to be viewed without obstruction.
Pryor does not teach, an emission module, configured to emit light, wherein the emission module is disposed on a non-display side of the display panel and faces the diverging element; and a receiving module, disposed on the non-display side of the display panel.
However, Wassvik teaches, ([0040]: In some examples, the emitters 404 are arranged on a substrate (not shown), and light from the emitters 404 travel above the touch surface 408 of a panel 402 mounted in a frame housing 426 via reflection or scattering on an edge reflector 420 or diffusor. The emitted light may propagate through a light transmissive sealing window 424. The light transmissive sealing window 424 allows light to propagate therethrough but prevents ingress of dirt into the frame housing 426 where the electronics and other components are mounted. The light will then continue until deflected by a corresponding edge reflector 422 at an opposing edge of the touch panel 402, where the light will be scattered back down around the touch panel 402 and onto the detectors 406). Wassvik further teaches, ([0041]: In this way, the touch sensitive apparatus 400 may be designed to be overlaid on or integrated into a display device or monitor).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Pryor with Wassvik to include the emission module disposed on a non-display side of the display panel facing the diverging element; and a receiving module, disposed on the non-display side of the display panel since, it is the same field of endeavor and results would have been predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to modify Pryor with Wassvik to, reduce the number of components and alignment complexity, in addition to providing unobstructed view of the display.
7. Regarding Claims 2 & 11:
Pryor as modified by Wassvik teaches, the emission module comprises: a light source, configured to emit light; and an optical component, configured to receive the light emitted by the light source and transmit the received light to the diverging element, ([0524]: The projected image is directed at the screen 1335 by one or more mirrors, such as 1350). Pryor further teaches, ([0206]: This screen is diffuse in order to scatter light such as 107 from elemental portions on its face). Pryor continues to teach, (FIG 13a. shows light from the projector (light source) incident on reflector 1350 to be directed to the diverging element (screen 1335)). The immediate specification discloses, ([0023]: For example, the optical component may adjust a transmission direction of the collimated light, or may cause the collimated light to be displaced/shifted). It would be clear to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the optical component in this case is a reflective element, i.e. a mirror or prism with reflective surface.
8. Regarding Claims 3 & 12:
Pryor as modified by Wassvik teaches the emission module, a light collimator, the optical component, and the diverging element ([0521]: A typical rear projection display layout of the invention is shown in more detail in FIG. 13. In this one example (of many potential layouts) the projector unit 1300 is just behind the ashtray 1301 with its bulb 1305 accessible easily by removing the ashtray. The screen assembly 1307 generally comprises 1-3 components. The first of these, closest to the projection lens 1320, is an optional collimating lens 1321). Pryor further teaches, ([0524]: The projected image is directed at the screen 1335 by one or more mirrors, such as 1350). Pryor continues to teach, ([0206]: This screen is diffuse in order to scatter light such as 107 from elemental portions on its face).
Pryor as modified by Wassvik does not teach, collimated light is transmitted from the light collimator after the light emitted by the light source is collimated by the light collimator, and the optical component adjusts the collimated light.
However, Pryor as modified by Wassvik teaches the light is reflected and then collimated, rather than being collimated first and then reflected. It has been held that rearrangement of parts is obvious, MPEP 2144.04 VI. C.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to place the collimator before the reflector to minimize the collimated beam diameter, allowing the total system to have a smaller footprint, in addition to reducing unwanted internal scattering of light. The immediate specification discloses no criticality regarding the order of collimation and reflection.
9. Regarding Claims 4 & 13:
Pryor as modified by Wassvik teaches an optical component comprising multiple reflectors, a collimator, and a diverging element. (see Claims 3 & 12).
Pryor as modified by Wassvik does not teach a first and second prism.
However, it would have been obvious to include a prism since it is equivalent to a mirror in this case. It has been held that, substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is obvious. MPEP 2144.06 II. (Substituting equivalents known for the same purpose). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to replace the mirrors with prisms, since prisms offer, superior image quality, higher reflectivity, better durability, and greater thermal stability with regard to standard mirrors. The immediate specification discloses no criticality regarding a prism.
10. Regarding Claims 5 & 14:
Pryor does not teach, the emission module further comprises: a housing structure, wherein the light source, the light collimator, and the first prism are encapsulated in the housing structure.
However, Wassvik teaches, ([0040]: In some examples, the emitters 404 are arranged on a substrate (not shown), and light from the emitters 404 travel above the touch surface 408 of a panel 402 mounted in a frame housing 426 via reflection or scattering on an edge reflector 420 or diffusor. The emitted light may propagate through a light transmissive sealing window 424. The light transmissive sealing window 424 allows light to propagate therethrough but prevents ingress of dirt into the frame housing 426 where the electronics and other components are mounted. The light will then continue until deflected by a corresponding edge reflector 422 at an opposing edge of the touch panel 402, where the light will be scattered back down around the touch panel 402 and onto the detectors 406). Wassvik further teaches, (FIG. 4 shows that edge reflector 420 is a prism, encapsulated in and connected to the housing structure).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Pryor with Wassvik to include the emission module in a housing structure, containing the light source, collimator, and first prism since, it is the same field of endeavor and results would have been predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to modify Pryor with Wassvik since, (Wassvik: [0041]: In this way, the touch sensitive apparatus 400 may be designed to be overlaid on or integrated into a display device or monitor). Thus, increasing system adaptability and versatility.
11. Regarding Claims 6 & 15:
Pryor does not teach, the emission module further comprises: a housing structure, wherein the light source and the light collimator are encapsulated in the housing structure. However, Wassvik teaches this, (see claims 5 & 14). Pryor as modified by Wassvik teaches, the first mirror is disposed on the non-display side of the display panel, (FIG 13a. Shows the first mirror disposed on the non-display side of the display panel). Pryor as modified by Wassvik does not teach a prism (see claims 4 & 13).
12. Regarding Claims 7 & 16:
Pryor as modified by Wassvik does not teach, the first prism is disposed on the display panel.
However, Pryor as modified by Wassvik teaches, the first mirror is disposed on the non-display side of the display panel (see Claims 6 & 15).
For substitution of the mirror for a prism, (see Claims 4 & 13).
It has been held that rearrangement of parts is obvious, MPEP 2144.04 VI. C. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to modify Pryor in view of Wassvik to include the prism disposed on the display panel since, this would reduce the complexity of the housing structure containing the emission module and potentially provide a smaller footprint for the resulting device. The immediate specification discloses no criticality regarding the placement of the prism.
13. Regarding Claims 8 & 17:
Pryor as modified by Wassvik teaches, a body, wherein the second mirror is disposed on the frame body and the cover plate is connected to the frame body, ([0524] The projected image is directed at the screen 1335 by one or more mirrors, such as 1350). FIG 13a. Shows a body, with a mirror and cover plate disposed on it.
For substitution of the mirror for a prism, (see Claims 4 & 13).
14. Claims 9 & 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pryor (US 20080211779 A1), in view of Wassvik (US 20230057020 A1), as applied to Claims 1, 3, 10 and 12 above, and further in view of Mori (US 20110235018 A1).
15. Regarding Claims 9 & 18:
Pryor as modified by Wassvik teaches, an optical component comprising multiple reflectors, a collimator, and a diverging element, (see Claims 3 & 4).
Pryor as modified by Wassvik does not teach a rhombic prism.
However, Mori teaches a LiDAR system, ([0086]: The third deflecting member 9e is configured by the pair of deflecting mirrors 9f and 9g that are held by the mirror holder 9h as described in the foregoing embodiments. Alternatively, as shown in FIG. 8, the third deflecting member 9e may be configured by a prism whose deflecting faces oppose each other and are tilted by 45 degrees from the optical axis L2).
FIG. 8 shows member 9e is a rhombic prism used to adjust the displacement of the light without adjusting the transmission direction, performing the same function as the reflectors in FIG. 6, members 9f & 9g.
It has been held that, substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is obvious. MPEP 2144.06 II.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to modify Pryor in view of Wassvik with Mori to include a rhombic prism since, they resist temperature changes and vibrations better than multi-mirror setups, maintaining high precision over time. In addition, High-tolerance angles ensure the output beam remains nearly perfectly parallel to the input beam.
The immediate specification discloses no criticality regarding the use of a rhombic prism.
Pryor as modified by Wassvik teaches, the emission module further comprises: a housing structure, wherein the light source and the light collimator are encapsulated in the housing structure, (see Claims 5 & 14). Pryor as modified by Wassvik further teaches the prism is connected to the housing structure, (see Claims 5 & 14), (FIG. 4 shows that edge reflector 420 is a prism, encapsulated in and connected to the housing structure).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 9951935 B2: Discloses an interactive display with multiple sensors incorporated into and beneath the display panel.
US 20190251749 A1: Discloses an augmented reality mirror system, including multiple sensors, a display device, and semi-reflecting surface.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES W NAPIER whose telephone number is (571)272-7451. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Robert Hodge can be reached at (571) 272-2097. 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.
/J.W.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ROBERT W HODGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654