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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-15, filed 5/26/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 13 under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1), and the rejection(s) of claims 1-10 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Huang et al. (US 2020/0128229 A1), cited in the IDS filed 6/5/23.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US 2020/0128229 A1) and Yamada et al. (US 2014/0340749 A1).
Re. Claim 1, Huang et al. discloses an image display device 100 (Figs. 1A-1B; [0024]), comprising:
an image forming unit 304 comprising a plurality of pixel regions corresponding to different colors (e.g., R,G, and B color channels), wherein
each pixel region of the plurality of pixel regions is configured to emit image light 306 within a respective wavelength band of a plurality of wavelength bands, and
the plurality of wavelength bands of the plurality of pixel regions is different (Fig. 3; [0031]);
a light guide plate (e.g., “single waveguide”; Fig. 3; [0033]) wherein
the image light 306 is incident on the light guide plate,
the image light 306 propagates in the light guide plate, and
the light guide plate is configured to emit the image light to an outside of the light guide plate (Fig. 3; [0031]-[0032]);
a first diffraction grating 308 on the light guide plate, wherein the first diffraction grating 308 is configured to:
diffract the image light incident on the light guide plate;
reflect the image light incident on the light guide plate; and
propagate the image light inside the light guide plate (Fig. 3; [0032]); and
a second diffraction grating 310 on the light guide plate, wherein the second diffraction grating is configured to:
diffract the image light propagated inside the light guide plate;
reflect the image light propagated inside the light guide plate; and
emit the image light from the light guide plate to the outside of the light guide plate (Fig. 3; [0032]), wherein
each wavelength band of the plurality of wavelength bands corresponds to a different angle-of-view range of the image light emitted from the light guide plate (Fig. 2; [0025]-[0026]).
However, Huang et al. does not disclose an optical system configured to convert each beam of the image light emitted from the image forming unit into a parallel beam having an angle of view, wherein each of the beam of the image light has an image height, such that the image light converted by the optical system is incident on the light guide plate.
Yamada et al. discloses an image display comprising an image forming unit 11 (Fig. 2B; [0033]), light guide plate 20 (Fig 2B; [0035]), first diffraction grating 17 and second diffraction grating 18 (Fig. 2B; [0040]), and an optical system 12 configured to convert each beam of the image light emitted from the image forming unit 11 into a parallel beam having an angle of view, wherein each of the beam of the image light has an image height, such that the image light converted by the optical system 12 is incident on the light guide plate 20 (Fig. 2B; [0034]).
The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as Yamada et al. illustrates the same is suitable for image display devices. “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton” – ‘[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Re. Claim 2, Huang et al. and Yamada et al. render obvious the image display device as discussed above. Huang et al. also discloses the image forming unit 304 includes a color filter ([0031]). The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the reasons discussed above.
Re. Claim 3, Huang et al. and Yamada et al. render obvious the image display device as discussed above. Yamada et al. additionally discloses the image forming unit 11 is at a position where an incident angle and a normal line of a surface of the light guide plate is inclined in a direction away from the second diffraction grating, the incident angle is formed by the image light emitted, and the image light is incident on the surface of the light guide plate (Fig. 2B). The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the reasons discussed above.
Re. Claim 4, Huang et al. and Yamada et al. render obvious the image display device as discussed above. Huang et al. also discloses each of the first diffraction grating 308 and the second diffraction grating 310 is a surface-relief type hologram or a volume type hologram (Fig. 3). The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the reasons discussed above.
Re. Claim 5, Huang et al. and Yamada et al. render obvious the image display device as discussed above.
However, neither Huang et al. nor Yamada et al. disclose the surface-relief type hologram has a blazed shape, and the blazed shape is one of an overhang shape or a stepped shape.
Blazed gratings of the geometry recited within the claim are well known in the art, and one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to utilize a blazed grating having an overhang or stepped shape for the purpose of achieving a desired optical diffraction from the grating. “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton” – ‘[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Re. Claim 8, Huang et al. and Yamada et al. render obvious the image display device as discussed above. Huang et al. also discloses the second diffraction grating 310 is in a protruding shape with respect to a surface of the light guide plate (Fig. 3). The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the reasons discussed above.
Re. Claim 9, Huang et al. and Yamada et al. render obvious the image display device as discussed above. Huang et al. also discloses two image forming units for a right eye and a left eye, wherein the two image forming units include the image forming unit ([0030]); two light guide plates for the right eye and the left eye, wherein the two light guide plates include the light guide plate ([0033]); two first diffraction gratings for the right eye and the left eye, wherein the two first diffraction gratings include the first diffraction grating (Fig. 3; [0033]); and two second diffraction grating for the right eye and the left eye, wherein the two second diffraction grating include the second diffraction grating (Fig. 3; [0033]), the image display device is configured to display a specific image based on superimposition of a first image for the right eye with and second image for the left eye ([0030]). The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the reasons discussed above.
Re. Claims 10-11, Huang et al. and Yamada et al. render obvious the image display device as discussed above. Huang et al. also discloses the image display device is further configured to display a third image comprising a binocular vision region and a monocular vision region, wherein the binocular vision region displays a color region, and the monocular vision region displays a white region (Fig. 2; [0027]). The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the reasons discussed above.
Re. Claim 13, Huang et al. discloses an image display method, comprising:
emitting, by an image forming unit 304 comprising a plurality of pixel regions corresponding to different colors, image light 306 within a respective wavelength band of a plurality of wavelength bands, wherein the plurality of wavelength bands of the plurality of pixel regions is different (Fig. 3; [0031]);
causing the image light 306 that has been emitted to incident on a light guide plate (e.g., “single waveguide”; Fig. 3; [0033]);
diffracting, by a first diffraction grating 308 on the light guide plate, the image light incident on the light guide plate (Fig. 3; [0032]);
reflecting, by the first diffraction grating 308 on the light guide plate, the image light incident on the light guide plate (Fig. 3; [0032]);
propagating the image light inside the light guide plate (Fig. 3; [0032]);
diffracting, by a second diffraction grating 310 on the light guide plate, the image light that has propagated inside the light guide plate (Fig. 3; [0032]);
reflecting, by the second diffraction grating 310 on the light guide plate, the image light propagated inside the light guide plate (Fig. 3; [0032]); and
emitting the image light from the light guide plate to an outside of the light guide plate, wherein each wavelength band of the plurality of wavelength bands corresponds to a different angle-of-view range of the image light emitted from the light guide plate (Fig. 2; [0025]-[0026]).
Huang et al. does not disclose converting, by an optical system, each beam of the image light emitted from the image forming unit into a parallel beam.
Yamada et al. discloses an image display comprising an image forming unit 11 (Fig. 2B; [0033]), light guide plate 20 (Fig 2B; [0035]), first diffraction grating 17 and second diffraction grating 18 (Fig. 2B; [0040]), and an optical system 12, wherein the method of using said device comprises converting, by an optical system, each beam of the image light emitted from the image forming unit into a parallel beam (Fig. 2B; [0034]).
The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as Yamada et al. illustrates the same is suitable for image display devices. “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton” – ‘[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6-7 and 12 are 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.
Re. Claims 6-7, the prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest the image display device as required by the claim, specifically wherein in the light guide plate, a third diffraction grating is arranged at a location where grating vectors of the first diffraction grating and grating vectors of the second diffraction grating intersect.
Re. Claim 12, the prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest the image display device as required by the claim, specifically wherein the image display device is configured to display a third image without a binocular vision region.
The most applicable prior art, including Huang et al. (US 2020/0128229 A1) and Yamada et al. (US 2014/0340749 A1), addressed above, fails to disclose or reasonably suggest the claimed invention, specifically those portions highlighted above in combination with the remaining limitations of the claims.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to R. PEACE whose telephone number is (571)272-8580. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at (571) 272-2397. 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.
/RHONDA S PEACE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 6/22/26
Prosecution Insights