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
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/23/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 3-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specific limitation “wherein other two adjoined first prisms of the first prism array is configured to receive the first reflected ray, and the first reflected ray is incident on the first optical interface of the other two adjoined first prisms to undergo a second total internal reflection at the first face of one of the other two adjoined first prisms, thereby turning into a second reflected ray” as presented in claim 1 is not supported by the originally filed application. As shown in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3A of the instant application, the first ray L1 appears to only pass through the first face 111. The examiner is not sure how ray L1 can pass through both of the other two adjoined first prisms of the first prism array receiving the first reflected ray. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schowengerdt et al. (US 2019/0310441).
Regarding claim 1, Schowengerdt et al. (figures 5A-5B) discloses a floating image display module, adapted for use in a holographic projection device, the floating image display module comprising:
a first prism array (the blocks 502 of 500a) comprising a plurality of first prisms, each of the first prisms having a first face, wherein the first faces of every two of the first prisms are in contact with each other to form a first optical interface (518b); and
a second prism array comprising a plurality of second prisms (the four blocks 502 of the third row), each of the second prisms having a second face, wherein the second faces of every two of the second prisms are in contact with each other to form a second optical interface (500b; figure 5B),
wherein the first prism array is configured so that a light ray enters one of the first prisms (502) of the first prism array and is incident on the first optical interface at a first incident angle to undergo total a first internal reflection at the first face of one of the first prisms (mirror 518b; see at least paragraph 0326),
wherein other two adjoined first prisms (the block 502 of the last column of 500a) of the first prism array is configured to receive the first reflected ray (525), and the first reflected ray is incident on the first optical interface of the other two adjoined first prisms to undergo a second total internal reflection at the first face of one of the other two adjoined first prisms, thereby turning into a second reflected ray(518a’);
wherein the second reflected ray enters the second prism array and is incident on the second optical interface at a third incident angle to undergo total internal reflection at the second face of one of the second prisms, thereby turning into a third reflected ray (518c or 518e), and the third reflected ray directly leaves the second prism array.
Schowengerdt et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the second prism array being detachably disposed on the first prism array. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second prism array being detachably disposed on the first prism array, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179. In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the two elements separable in order to easily repair/access the inner parts of the device.
The limitation, “wherein a light ray enters the first prism array and is incident on the first optical interface at a first incident angle to undergo total internal reflection at the first face of one of the first prisms, thereby turning into a first reflected ray, wherein another light ray enters the first prism array and is incident on the first optical interface at a second incident angle to undergo total internal reflection at the first face of the other first prism, thereby turning into a second reflected ray, wherein the second reflected ray enters the second prism array and is incident on the second optical interface at a third incident angle to undergo total internal reflection at the second face of one of the second prisms, thereby turning into a third reflected ray” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Schowengerdt et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 2, Schowengerdt et al. (figures 5A-5B) discloses wherein the first reflected ray enters other two adjoining first prisms of the first prism array, and the other two adjoining first prisms are in contact with each other.
The limitation, “wherein the first reflected ray enters other two adjoining first prisms of the first prism array” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Schowengerdt et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 3, Schowengerdt et al. (figures 5A-5B) discloses wherein the first incident angle is greater than or equal to 45 degrees.
The limitation, “wherein the first incident angle is greater than or equal to 45 degrees” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Schowengerdt et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 4, Schowengerdt et al. (figures 5A-5B) discloses wherein the second incident angle is greater than or equal to 45 degrees.
The limitation, “wherein the second incident angle is greater than or equal to 45 degrees” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Schowengerdt et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 5, Schowengerdt et al. (figures 5A-5B) discloses wherein an included angle between the third reflected ray and a fourth face of each of the second prisms is greater than or equal to 30 degrees but less than or equal to 45 degrees.
The limitation, “wherein an included angle between the third reflected ray and a fourth face of each of the second prisms is greater than or equal to 30 degrees but less than or equal to 45 degrees” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Schowengerdt et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 6, Schowengerdt et al. (figures 5A-5B) discloses wherein the second prism array is detachably disposed on top of the first prism array such that a third face of one of the first prisms and the fourth face of one of the second prisms are in contact with each other to form a third optical interface which the second reflected ray penetrates to enter the second prism array (the plane between prims 206a and 206d).
The limitation, “wherein the first reflected ray enters other two adjoining first prisms of the first prism array” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Schowengerdt et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Claims 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schowengerdt et al. in view of Nakamura (WO 2021/235202).
Regarding claim 7, Schowengerdt et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 6 above. However, Schowengerdt et al. is silent regarding the prisms. Nakamura (figures 5-6) teaches wherein each of the first prisms is a triangular prism and further comprises a fifth face such that each two of the first face, the third face and the fifth face adjoin each other, thereby allowing each of the first prisms to have an included angle of 90 degrees defined between the third face and the fifth face, an included angle of 45 degrees defined between the first face and the third face, and an included angle of 45 degrees defined between the first face and the fifth face (20). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the image enlargement module as taught by Nakamura in order to achieve visibility control method that makes the distance to the visual object appear longer than the actual distance and realize complicated visual expression. In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have each of the first prisms to have an included angle of 90 degrees defined between the third face and the fifth face, an included angle of 45 degrees defined between the first face and the third face, and an included angle of 45 degrees defined between the first face and the fifth face, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Regarding claim 8, Schowengerdt et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 6 above. However, Schowengerdt et al. is silent regarding the prisms. Nakamura (figures 5-6) teaches wherein each of the second prisms is a triangular prism and further comprises a sixth face such that each two of the second face, the fourth face and the sixth face adjoin each other, thereby allowing each of the second prisms to have an included angle of 90 degrees defined between the fourth face and the sixth face, an included angle of 60 to 65 degrees defined between the second face and the fourth face, and an included angle of 25 to 30 degrees defined between the second face and the sixth face (20). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the image enlargement module as taught by Nakamura in order to achieve visibility control method that makes the distance to the visual object appear longer than the actual distance and realize complicated visual expression. In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have each of the second prisms to have an included angle of 90 degrees defined between the fourth face and the sixth face, an included angle of 60 to 65 degrees defined between the second face and the fourth face, and an included angle of 25 to 30 degrees defined between the second face and the sixth face, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Regarding claim 9, Schowengerdt et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 6 above. However, Schowengerdt et al. is silent regarding the prisms. Nakamura (figures 5-6) teaches wherein each of the second prisms is a triangular prism and further comprises a sixth face such that each two of the second face, the fourth face and the sixth face adjoin each other, thereby allowing each of the second prisms to have an included angle of 90 degrees defined between the fourth face and the sixth face, an included angle of 60 to 65 degrees defined between the second face and the fourth face, and an included angle of 25 to 30 degrees defined between the second face and the sixth face (20). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the image enlargement module as taught by Nakamura in order to achieve visibility control method that makes the distance to the visual object appear longer than the actual distance and realize complicated visual expression. In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have each of the second prisms to have an included angle of 90 degrees defined between the fourth face and the sixth face, an included angle of 60 to 65 degrees defined between the second face and the fourth face, and an included angle of 25 to 30 degrees defined between the second face and the sixth face, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Regarding claim 10, Schowengerdt et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 6 above. However, Schowengerdt et al. is silent regarding the prisms. Nakamura (figures 5-6) teaches wherein each of the second prisms is a triangular prism and further comprises a sixth face such that the second face, the fourth face and the sixth face adjoin each other, thereby allowing each of the second prisms to have an included angle of 90 degrees defined between the fourth face and the sixth face, an included angle of 25 to 30 degrees defined between the second face and the fourth face, and an included angle of 60 to 65 degrees defined between the second face and the sixth face (20). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the image enlargement module as taught by Nakamura in order to achieve visibility control method that makes the distance to the visual object appear longer than the actual distance and realize complicated visual expression. In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have each of the second prisms to have an included angle of 90 degrees defined between the fourth face and the sixth face, an included angle of 25 to 30 degrees defined between the second face and the fourth face, and an included angle of 60 to 65 degrees defined between the second face and the sixth face, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Regarding claim 11, Schowengerdt et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 6 above. However, Schowengerdt et al. is silent regarding the prisms. Nakamura (figures 5-6) teaches wherein each of the second prisms is a triangular prism and further comprises a sixth face such that the second face, the fourth face and the sixth face adjoin each other, thereby allowing each of the second prisms to have an included angle of 90 degrees defined between the fourth face and the sixth face, an included angle of 25 to 30 degrees defined between the second face and the fourth face, and an included angle of 60 to 65 degrees defined between the second face and the sixth face (20). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the image enlargement module as taught by Nakamura in order to achieve visibility control method that makes the distance to the visual object appear longer than the actual distance and realize complicated visual expression. In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second prisms to have an included angle of 90 degrees defined between the fourth face and the sixth face, an included angle of 25 to 30 degrees defined between the second face and the fourth face, and an included angle of 60 to 65 degrees defined between the second face and the sixth face, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Regarding claim 12, Nakamura (figures 5-6) teaches a holographic projection device, comprising: a display module for emitting light rays to form an image; and a floating image display module of claim 1, wherein the floating image display module bends optical paths of the light rays to allow the light rays to travel in a viewing direction and thereby enter an observer's eyes, thereby generating a holographic image visually.
The limitation, “wherein the floating image display module bends optical paths of the light rays to allow the light rays to travel in a viewing direction and thereby enter an observer's eyes, thereby generating a holographic image visually” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Schowengerdt et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Claims 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schowengerdt et al. in view of Smithwick (US 2020/0408964).
Regarding claim 13, Schowengerdt et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 12 above. However, Schowengerdt et al. is silent regarding an image enlargement module which the light rays pass through to allow the image to be enlarged before entering the floating image display module. Smithwick (figure 2) teaches an image enlargement module which the light rays pass through to allow the image to be enlarged before entering the floating image display module (see at least paragraph 0029). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the image enlargement module as taught by Smithwick in order to achieve an angle-enhancing screen.
The limitation, “allow the image to be enlarged before entering the floating image display module” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Schowengerdt et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 14, Smithwick (figure 2) teaches wherein the image enlargement module comprises a Fresnel lens, and the light rays pass through the Fresnel lens.
Regarding claim 15, Smithwick (figure 2) teaches an optical path adjustment module such that the light rays sequentially pass through the image enlargement module and the optical path adjustment module, thereby allowing the light rays to be focused on a position of the floating image display module before entering the floating image display module (lens array; see at least paragraph 0029).
The limitation, “such that the light rays sequentially pass through the image enlargement module and the optical path adjustment module, thereby allowing the light rays to be focused on a position of the floating image display module before entering the floating image display module” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Schowengerdt et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 16, Smithwick (figure 2) teaches an wherein the optical path adjustment module comprises a plurality of optical microstructures arranged in a two-dimensional pattern (lens array; see at least paragraph 0029).
Regarding claim 17, Smithwick (figure 2) teaches wherein the optical microstructures are convex lens of equal or unequal size (lens array; see at least paragraph 0029).
Regarding claim 18, Smithwick (figure 2) teaches a floating image display system operating device, comprising: the floating image display device of claim 12; a signal emitter (212) for continuously emitting a detection signal, wherein the detection signal and at least one of the light rays forming the image synchronously pass through the floating image display module and thereby travel in the viewing direction (250); a signal receiver (240) for continuously receiving the detection signal in the viewing direction; and a processor (242) connected to the signal receiver, wherein when the signal receiver receives the detection signal, the detection signal is continuously sent to the processor, wherein the processor is configured to generate a control signal if the processor does not receive the detection signal.
The limitation, “a signal emitter for continuously emitting a detection signal, wherein the detection signal and at least one of the light rays forming the image synchronously pass through the floating image display module and thereby travel in the viewing direction; a signal receiver for continuously receiving the detection signal in the viewing direction; and a processor connected to the signal receiver, wherein when the signal receiver receives the detection signal, the detection signal is continuously sent to the processor, wherein the processor is configured to generate a control signal if the processor does not receive the detection signal” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Schowengerdt et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1428. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 8:00 AM -6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Carruth, can be reached at 571-272-97911. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAUREN NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
