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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 02/25/2022. Priority documents required per 37 CFR 1.55 were electronically retrieved.
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art documents submitted by applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement filed 08/05/2025 have all been considered and made of record.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendment filed 07/07/2025 has been considered and entered.
The rejection under 35 USC 112 set forth in the office action mailed 04/08/2025 is withdrawn in view of the applicant’s amendments.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments filed 07/07/2025 have been fully considered.
With regards to amended claim 1, applicant has argued that Popovich[1] and Popovich[2] together do not disclose
the second emitting-side diffraction element deflects the infrared light guided in the second light guide member and emits the infrared light toward the eye position of the user and deflects the infrared light from the eye position of the user such that the infrared light is incident on the second light guide member;
the second incident-side diffraction element emits the infrared light deflected by the second emitting-side diffraction element and incident on the second light guide member toward the infrared light receiving device; and
the second incident-side diffraction element is disposed on a first side of the second light guide member in an extension direction of the second light guide member, and the second emitting-side diffraction element is disposed on a second side of the second light guide member in the extension direction of the second light guide member opposite to the first side
as presented in the claims filed 07/07/2025. In regards to the collective combination of limitations ABC above, examiner agrees with applicants arguments in regards to the element mapping relied upon in the action submitted 04/082025, but still considers the combination of Popovich[1] and Popovich[2] to be of particular relevance to the applicant’s invention as claimed. In light of the amended limitations of claim 1, and due to the particular relevance of the references in question, examiner has remapped certain elements of Popovich[1] and Popovich[2] in a way that discloses claim 1 as amended (See the Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 section of this office action).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Popovich[1] (US 10690916 B2) in view of Popovich[2] (US 20160209657 A1).
With regards to claim 1, Popovich[1] discloses a virtual image display device comprising:
an image light generating device configured to emit image light (Popovich[1]/Fig5/image light generating device 132 [Light source]);
an infrared light emitting device configured to emit infrared light (Fig9/Infrared light emitting device 175 [Infrared source]);
an infrared light receiving device configured to receive the infrared light (Fig9/infrared light receiving device 174 [Infrared detector]);
a first light guide optical system (Fig9/First light guide optical system 171 [Waveguide]) including
a first light guide member (Fig5/First light guide member 151R [Waveguide]),
a first incident-side diffraction element provided on an incident side of the first light guide member (Fig5/First incident side diffraction element 152R [Input grating]), and
a first emitting-side diffraction element provided on an emitting side of the first light guide member (Fig5/first emitting-side diffraction element 154R [Output grating]);
and
a second light guide optical system (Fig9/Waveguide 173 per text [typo; corresponds to 172 in fig9])
wherein
the first incident-side diffraction element deflects the image light emitted from the image light generating device such that the image light is incident on the first light guide member (Figures 5 and 9),
the first emitting-side diffraction element
deflects the image light guided in the first light guide member and
emits the image light toward an eye position of a user (Fig9/Light paths 1030-1032),
the second light guide optical system is disposed closer to the eye position of the user than the first light guide optical system is (Fig9).
Popovich[1] does not teach:
the second light guide optical system as including
a second light guide member,
a second incident-side diffraction element provided on an incident side of the second light guide member, and
a second emitting-side diffraction element provided on an emitting side of the second light guide member,
the second incident-side diffraction element as deflecting the infrared light emitted from the infrared light emitting device such that the infrared light is incident on the second light guide member,
the second emitting-side diffraction element
as deflecting the infrared light guided in the second light guide member and
emitting the infrared light toward the eye position of the user and
deflecting the infrared light from the eye position of the user such that the infrared light is incident on the second light guide member,
the second incident-side diffraction element as emitting the infrared light deflected by the second emitting-side diffraction element and incident on the second light guide member toward the infrared light receiving device.
the second incident-side diffraction element as being disposed on a first side of the second light guide member in an extension direction of the second light guide member, and
the second emitting-side diffraction element is disposed on a second side of the second light guide member in the extension direction of the second light guide member opposite to the first side.
However, the practice of configuring a second light guide optical system in the manner claimed exists in the art as exemplified by Popovich[2]. Popovich[1] and Popovich[2] are considered to be analogous in the field of display devices.
Popovich[2] teaches a light guide optical system including
a second light guide member (Popovich[2]/Fig33a-b/Light guide member 451 [Waveguide component]; Paragraph 169/Lines 13-21),
a second incident-side diffraction element (Fig33a-b/Incident side diffraction element defined by elements 458 and 459 [Gratings]) provided on an incident side of the light guide member (Popovich[2]/Fig33a/Incident side [Portion of element 451 fully below element 450 as depicted in fig33a]), and
a second emitting-side diffraction element (Fig33a-b/Emitting side diffraction element defined by elements 452 and 453 [Image sampling gratings]) provided on an emitting side (Popovich[2]/Fig33a/Emitting side [Portion of element 451 wholly within element 450 as depicted in fig33a]) of the second light guide member,
wherein
the second incident-side diffraction element deflects the infrared light (Popovich[2]/Infrared light within path defined by element 1431) emitted from an infrared light emitting device (Popovich[2]/Paragraph 115/ lines 1-2) such that the infrared light is incident on the second light guide member (Popovich[2]/Fig33a-b/The path moving from element 459 into and through element 451),
the second emitting-side diffraction element
deflects the infrared light guided in the second light guide member (Fig33a-b) and
emits the infrared light toward the eye position of the user (Fig33a-b) and
deflects the infrared light from the eye position of the user such that the infrared light is incident on the light guide member (Fig33a-b/The path moving from element 452 into and through element 451),
the second incident-side diffraction element as emitting the infrared light deflected by the second emitting-side diffraction element and incident on the second light guide member toward the infrared light receiving device (Fig33a-b; Paragraph 169/Lines 36-42),
the second incident-side diffraction element as being disposed on a first side of the second light guide member in an extension direction of the second light guide member (Popovich[2]/Fig33a/First side [Side towards the top of element 451 as depicted in fig33a), and
the second emitting-side diffraction element as being disposed on a second side of the second light guide member in the extension direction of the second light guide member opposite to the first side (Popovich[2]/Fig33a/Second side [Side toward the bottom of element 451 as depicted in fig33a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the second light guide optical system disclosed by Popovich[1] in the manner suggested by Popovich[2] because Popovich[1] explicitly cites Popovich[2] as describing details regarding the structure of the second light guide optical system (Popovich[1]/Column 13/Lines 1-10), and further because doing so would result in the infrared light paths described by Popovich[1] which would allow the virtual image display device of Popovich[1] to effectively track the users’ eye motion.
With regards to claim 2, Popovich[1] and Popovich[2] together disclose the virtual image display device according to claim 1 as previously discussed, wherein the infrared light emitting device is disposed closer to the second emitting-side diffraction element than the image light generating device is in the extension direction of the second light guide member (Popovich[1]/Fig9/Infrared light emitting device 175 is closer to emission side than image light generating device 132).
With regards to claim 4, Popovich[1] and Popovich[2] together disclose the virtual image display device according to claim 1 as previously discussed, wherein the infrared light emitting device and the infrared light receiving device are arranged on a side of the eye position of the second light guide optical system (Popovich[1]/Fig9/Infrared light emitting 175 and receiving 174 devices are disposed on the front side of the eye position of light guides as shown below).
PNG
media_image1.png
324
466
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 8, Popovich[1] and Popovich[2] together disclose the virtual image display device according to claim 1 as previously discussed, wherein the second light guide member includes a first infrared light guide member that guides the infrared light from the infrared light emitting device and a second infrared light guide member that guides the infrared light reflected by the eye of the user (Popovich[2]/Fig33a/First infrared light guide member [Unlabeled; member defined by dashed box as shown below and to the left]), and the second incident-side diffraction element includes a first infrared incident-side diffraction element provided on the first infrared light guide member and a second infrared incident-side diffraction element provided on the second infrared light guide member (Popovich[2]/Fig33a/Second infrared light guide member [Unlabeled; member defined by dashed box as shown below and to the right]).
PNG
media_image2.png
281
473
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
281
473
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 10, Popovich[1] and Popovich[2] together disclose the virtual image display device according to claim 1 as previously discussed, wherein a wavelength selection member that blocks infrared light and transmits image light is disposed facing an incident-side end portion of the first light guide member and a surface thereof adjacent to the second light guide member (Popovich[1]/Fig8/Wavelength selection member 181 [Dynamic focusing element]).
With regards to claim 11, Popovich[1] and Popovich[2] together disclose the virtual image display device according to claim 10 as previously discussed, wherein the wavelength selection member is disposed closer to the second emitting-side diffraction element than the infrared light emitting device is (Popovich[1]/Fig8).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Popovich[1] (US 10690916 B2) and Popovich[2] (US 20160209657 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takashima (US 20220350153 A1).
With regards to claim 3, Popovich[1] and Popovich[2] together disclose the virtual image display device according to claim 1 as previously discussed, but do not disclose the image light generating device as being disposed closer to the second emitting-side diffraction element than the infrared light emitting device in the extension direction of the second light guide member. However, the practice of configuring a virtual image display such that an image light generating device is closer to an emission side than an IR source is known in the art, as exemplified by Takashima. Popovich[1], Popovich[2], and Takashima are considered to be analogous in the field of display devices.
Takashima teaches a virtual image display device wherein the image light generating device is disposed closer to the second emitting-side diffraction element than the infrared light emitting device is in an extension direction of a second light guide member (Takashima/Fig9a/Udisplay is closer to diffraction element than IR source in extension direction of waveguide). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the virtual image display device disclosed by Popovich[1] and Popovich[2] since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Additionally, Popovich[1] discloses a virtual image display device where the image light generating device is disposed closer to the second emitting-side diffraction element than the infrared light emitting device is in the extension direction of the second light guide member, as previously discussed (Claim 2). The applicant has claimed both configurations. It would have been obvious to have chosen one configuration over the other since the applicant has not disclosed one configuration as solving any stated problem or as being selected for any particular purpose and it appears the invention would perform equally as well with either configuration.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Popovich[1] (US 10690916 B2) and Popovich[2] (US 20160209657 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of David (US 7205960 B2).
With regards to claim 5, Popovich[1] and Popovich[2] together disclose the virtual image display device according to claim 2 as previously discussed, but do not disclose the second incident-side diffraction element as being disposed closer to the second emitting-side diffraction element than the first incident-side diffraction element is in the extension direction of the second light guide member, nor do they disclose the second incident-side diffraction element and the first incident-side diffraction element as being arranged without overlapping in an emitting direction of the image light. However, the practices of positioning elements as claimed exist in the art, as exemplified by David. Popovich[1], Popovich[2], and David are considered to be analogous in the field of display devices.
David teaches a second incident-side diffraction element as being positioned closer to a second emitting-side diffraction element than a first incident-side diffraction element (David/Fig7a/Second incident-side diffraction element 105 is closer to second emitting-side diffraction element 108), and the positioning of a second diffraction element and first diffraction element without overlapping in an emission direction (David/Fig7a). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position the diffraction elements in the device disclosed by Popovich[1] and Popovich[2] in the manner suggested by David because doing so would prevent interference between the two elements, and further because it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
With regards to claim 6, Popovich[1], Popovich[2], and David together disclose the virtual image display device according to claim 5 as previously discussed. David further discloses the second light guide member as being shorter than the first light guide member in the extension direction of the second light guide member (David/Fig7a/First and second light guides 101 and 102 [First and second transparent plates]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Popovich[1] (US 10690916 B2) and Popovich[2] (US 20160209657 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Saarikko (US 20160370583 A1).
With regards to claim 7, Popovich[1] and Popovich[2] together disclose the virtual image display device according to claim 1 as previously discussed, but do not teach the infrared light emitting device as being disposed closer to the second emitting-side diffraction element than the infrared light receiving device is in the extension direction of the second light guide member. However, the practice of positioning elements as claimed exists in the art as exemplified by Saarikko. Popovich[1], Popovich[2], and Saarikko are considered to be analogous in the field of display devices.
Saarikko teaches an infrared light emitting device disposed closer to an emission side than the infrared light receiving device is in the extension direction of the second light guide member (Saarikko/Fig2b/IR light emitting device 134a is closer to the emission side [left, per fig2b] of apparatus than the IR light receiving device 134b). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to – within the virtual display disclosed by Popovich[1] and Popovich[2] – position the infrared light receiving device closer to the emission side than the infrared light receiving device as suggested by Saarikko, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Popovich[1] (US 10690916 B2) and Popovich[2] (US 20160209657 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Grant (US 12222499 B2).
With regards to claim 9, Popovich[1] and Popovich[2] together disclose the virtual image display device according to claim 1 as previously discussed, but do not disclose a light blocking film or a reflective film as being disposed on at least one of incident-side and emitting-side end portions of the second light guide member. However, the practice of including a light blocking film at one or more ends of a light guide exists in the art, as exemplified by Grant. Popovich[1], Popovich[2], and Grant are considered to be analogous in the field of display devices.
Grant teaches a light blocking film disposed on an end portion of a second light guide member (Grant/Fig2/Light blocking film 270 [Light absorbing layer]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a light blocking film at one or more ends of the second light guiding member disclosed by Popovich[1] and Popovich[2] as suggested by Grant since doing so would reduce losses in the second light guide member.
Conclusion
This prior art, made of record, but not relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure since the following references have similar structure and/or use similar structure and/or similar optical elements to what is disclosed and/or claimed in the instant application:
Robbins [US 8736963 B2] [Fig6]
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marc E Manheim whose telephone number is (703)756-1873. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30am - 5pm E.T., Monday - Tuesday and Thursday - Friday.
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 A 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.
/MARC E MANHEIM/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/MICHELLE R CONNELLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874