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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 15 in the reply filed on March 4, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 506-526 remain pending in this application.
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.
Claim 523 is 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.
The recitations of the first and second relayed image surfaces are both observable in a foreground or both observable in a background in claim 523 are in contradiction to the based claim (claim 506). It is also not supported by the elected species.
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) 506-508, 511-523, and 524-526 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication by Hashikawa (US 2011/0181949 A1) in view of US patent application publication by Alton et al (US 2015/0370071 A1).
Hashikawa teaches, with regard to claims 506 and 524, a floating image display device that serves as the optical system that is comprised of a first display section (4, Figure 10) that implicitly includes a first input interface configured to receive light from a first image source which is operable to define a first image surface, a second display section (1) that is implicitly includes a second input interface configured to receive light along a second set of light paths from a second image source which is operable to define a second image surface and a mirror (2) that serves as the relay system, (by definition the mirror serves as a relay that transfers light beam from one location to another) configured direct to the received light from the first and second image sources to a view volume, wherein at least one of the first and second image surfaces is relayed by the relay system into the viewing volume. Hashikawa teaches that the light from the first image source (4) defines a foreground surface (6) in the viewing volume in front of a background surface (3) defined by light from the second image source (1) in the viewing volume.
This reference has met all the limitations of the claims, it however does not teach explicitly to include occlusion system optically preceding at least one of the first and second input surface.
Alton et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a display device that is comprised of a mask (114. Figures 3 and 4B) that serves as the occlusion system optically preceding a display panel (112) that the mask or occlusion configured to occlude a portion of the light from the display panel. It is within general level skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Alton et al to place it in front of the second image surface of the second image source (1, Figure 10 of Hashikawa) for the benefit of limiting the size of the background surface (3) from the second image source so that it may have the same size as the foreground surface (6).
With regard to claim 506, the occlusion system may comprise at least one mask layer and with regard to claim 524, the occlusion system may comprise at least one mask as occlusion object.
Alton et al teaches that the border region of the mask (114, Figure 5A) may be activated, (please see paragraph [0040]), to adjust the size of the border and the transmission portion/occlusion portion of the mask. This activation region may comprise liquid crystal element (please see paragraph [0041]), that implicitly includes individually addressable elements.
With regard to claim 507, Hashikawa teaches that the at least one of the first and second image source comprises a 2D display surface.
With regard to claim 508, it is implicitly true that the image surfaces comprises an image surface projected from the image sources as taught by Hashikawa is an image surface projected from a 2D display surface.
With regard to claim 511, Hashikawa teaches that both the first and second image surfaces are relayed by the relay system into the viewing volume to define first and second relayed image surface respectively. In light of the Alton et al, the occluded portion of the light corresponds to relayed occluded portion of at least one of the first and second relayed image surface, the relayed occluded portion being observable in the viewing volume as being occluded by the other one of the first and second relayed image surfaces.
With regard to claims 512 and 513, Hashikawa teaches that the foreground image generated from the first image surface may be relayed into the viewing volume. In light of Alton et al it is within general level of skilled in the art to arrange the line of sight to arrange the relayed occluded portion being occluded by relayed image surface.
With regard to claim 514, it is within general level skilled in the art to modify the display device to include additional occlusion system to provide other occlusion effect.
With regard to claim 515, Alton et al teaches that the one or more individually addressable elements comprise occlusion sites configured to block a portion of the incident light, (please see paragraphs [0040] to [0041]).
With regard to claim 516, Alton et al teaches that the one or more occlusion layer comprises one or more liquid crystal panel, (please see paragraph [0041]).
With regard to claims 517 and 525, Alton et al does not teach explicitly concerning the distance between the at least one occlusion layer and the second image source. However, it is within general level skilled in the art to modify the distance between the occlusion layer and the second image source to be equal to the distance between the foreground surface and the background surface to allow the viewing of the foreground image and background image to have the desired viewing quality.
With regard to claims 518 and 526, it is within general level skilled in the art to modify the occlusion region defined by the at least on occlusion layer is relayed to the viewing volume to substantially coincide with the foreground surface by adjusting the relative positions of the image sources, occlusion system and the relay.
With regard to claim 519, Alton et al teaches that the occlusion region is coordinated to the image surface which therefore is coordinated to the image surface in the viewing volume. A controller for controlling the occlusion region therefore is implicitly included.
With regard to claims 520-521, Hashikawa teaches that light from first image source (4, Figure 10) is relayed into the viewing volume to define a relayed image (6) surface observable in a foreground and light from the second image source (1) is observable in the viewing volume in a background (3). With regard to claim 521, it is alternatively true that one can identify the image source (4, Figure 10) as the second image source for the second image be relayed to be viewed as foreground image (6) and the image source (1) be identified as the first image source for the first image be relayed to be viewed as background image (3).
With regard to claim 522, Hashikawa teaches that the light from the first and second image sources are both relayed into the viewing volume to form the first and second relayed image surface respectively, (please see Figure 10).
With regard to claim 523, Hashikawa teaches that one of the first and second relay image surface is observable in a foreground and the other of the first and second relay image is observable in a background.
Claim(s) 509 and 510 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashikawa and Alton et al as applied to claim 506 above, and further in view of US patent application publication by Tsang et al (US 2011/0249087 A1).
The floating image display device taught by Hashikawa in combination with the teachings of Alton et al as described in claim 506 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claims 509-510, Hashikawa teaches that the second image source comprises a 2D display surface but it does not teach explicitly that the first image surface comprises a surface of a holographic object. Tsang et al in the same field of endeavor teaches an aerial image projection wherein a holographic image including a holographic object is provided by an image source, (please see Figure 1 and abstract). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Tsang et al to modify the floating image display device to make the image source comprises a holographic image for the benefit of making the image display device is capable of displaying a floating holographic image.
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 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.
AUDREY Y. CHANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/AUDREY Y CHANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872