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 .
2. Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons stated below.
3. 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.
4. Claims 2-4 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 specification, as originally filed, fails to teach or fairly suggest that the partially transmissive mirror includes both a semi-transmissive mirror film and a reflective polarizer in a single embodiment as now presented in claim 2. In fact, the specification, as originally filed only supports the partially transmissive mirror imparts either a semi-transmissive mirror film or a reflective polarizer, but not both as now claimed.
Claims 3 and 4 are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ) due to their dependency on claim 2.
5. 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.
6. Claim(s) 1, 6-8 and 10 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukawa (US 2005/0140644) in view of Ouderkirk et al (US 9,557,568).
Mukawa discloses a virtual image display device comprising an image light generation device (10); a projection optical system (20A) on which image light from the image light generation device is incident (se Fig. 4); and a partially transmissive mirror (70) configured to partially reflect the image light from the projection optical system toward a pupil position (100), see Fig. 4, wherein a transmissive polarizer (80) is disposed outside the partially transmissive mirror (see Fig. 4), the partially transmissive mirror inherently includes a semi-transmissive mirror film facing the pupil (see Fig. 4), and a λ/4 wave plate is disposed facing the outside and is disposed between the semi-transmissive mirror film and the transmissive polarizer, wherein the transmissive polarizer is a transmissive polarizing film positioned outside of the λ/4 wave plate (see Fig. 4), wherein a transmission axis of the transmissive polarizer extends in an up-down direction due to the fact that the polarizing plate can be rotated perpendicular to each plane (see paragraph 0055), wherein the partially transmissive mirror is a concave mirror (see Fig. 4), wherein the projection optical system includes a first optical member (15) and a second optical member (the semi-transmissive mirror) configured to reflect image light from the first optical member (see Fig. 4), and wherein the partially transmissive mirror reflects the image light such that an optical axis is directed upward at a predetermined angle toward the pupil (see Fig. 4), except for the transmissive polarizer being provide on a side of a plate-shaped body and the λ/4 wave plate provided on another side of the plate-shaped body.
Ouderkirk et al teaches it is well known to attach a semi-transmissive mirror (317, 617, 717) to one side of a curved plate-shaped body (312, 612, 712) and a λ/4 wave plate (425, 625, 725) to another side of the plate-shaped body in the same filed of endeavor for the purpose of providing for an unitary optical assembly so as to prevent the need for individual alignment of each of the plurality of optical elements in an optical system in addition to reducing assembly and manufacturing costs. See figures 3A, 6 and 7 along with the associated description thereof.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the partially transmissive mirror or the λ/4 wave plate Mukawa to include a typical plate-shaped body/substrate and attach the partially transmissive mirror to one side and attach the λ/4 wave plate to another side, as taught by Ouderkirk et al, in order to provide or obtain an unitary optical element so as to prevent the need for individual alignment of each of the plurality of optical elements in an optical system in addition to reducing assembly and manufacturing costs.
As to the limitations of claim 6, that the transmission polarizer is attached to the λ/4 wave plate, the examiner takes Official notice that it is well known to use and employ an optical adhesive to attach/laminate one optical element to another optical element in the same field of endeavor for the purpose of providing or obtaining an unitary optical element so as to prevent the need for individual alignment of each of the plurality of optical elements in an optical system in addition to reducing assembly and manufacturing costs.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the transmissive polarizer or the λ/4 wave plate of Mukawa in view of Ouderkirk et al to include a typical an optical adhesive, as commonly use and employed in the optical art, in order to provide or obtain an unitary optical element so as to prevent the need for individual alignment of each of the plurality of optical elements in an optical system in addition to reducing assembly and manufacturing costs.
7. Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
8. U.S. Patent 2022/0326523 to Le at al cited on a PTO-892 of the Office Action mailed on 08/27/2025 similarly teaches the well-known concept of attach one optical element to another optical with an optical adhesive.
9. 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.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICKY D SHAFER whose telephone number is (571)272-2320. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 11:00-7:30.
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 at (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.
RDS
December 27, 2025
/RICKY D SHAFER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872