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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/5/23 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sears et al. (US 2020/0111258 A1).
Re. Claim 13, Sears et al. discloses an image display method comprising:
a step of including a plurality of pixels 2480 and emitting image light divided into a plurality of color beams 2460A, 2460B, and 2460C from the plurality of pixels 2480 (Fig. 24; [0226], [0229]);
a step of causing the image light that has been emitted to be incident on a light guide plate 2442 (Fig. 24; [0227]);
a step of diffracting and reflecting the image light incident on the light guide plate 2442 and propagating the image light inside the light guide plate 2442 (Fig. 24; [0228]); and
a step of diffracting and reflecting the image light that has propagated inside the light guide plate 2442 and emitting the image light from the light guide plate 2442 to the outside (Fig. 24; [0227], [0242]).
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.
Claim(s) 1-10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sears et al. (US 2020/0111258 A1) and Mukawa (US 2009/0141324 A1).
Re. Claim 1, Sears et al. discloses an image display device 2440 (Fig. 24; [0226]) comprising:
an image forming unit 2470 that has a plurality of pixels 2480 and emits image light from the plurality of pixels 2480 (Fig. 24; [0226]);
a light guide plate 2442 on which the image light is incident, in which the image light propagates, and from which the image light is emitted to the outside (Fig. 24; [0227]);
a first diffraction grating 2452 that is provided on the light guide plate 2442, diffracts and reflects the image light incident on the light guide plate 2442, and propagates the image light inside the light guide plate 2442 (Fig. 24; [0228]); and
a second diffraction grating 2446A/2446B that is provided on the light guide plate 2442, diffracts and reflects the image light that has propagated inside the light guide plate, and emits the image light from the light guide plate to the outside (Fig. 24; [0227], [0242]),
wherein the image forming unit divides the image light into a plurality of color beams 2460A, 2460B, and 2460C (Fig. 24; [0229]).
However, Sears et al. does not disclose an optical system that converts each beam of the image light having an image height emitted from the image forming unit into a parallel beam having an angle of view.
Mukawa discloses an image display device 10 comprising an image forming unit 11 for emitting an image light, light guide plate 21, a first diffractive grating 30, a second diffractive grating 40, and an optical system 12 that converts each beam of the image light having an image height emitted from the image forming unit 11 into a parallel beam having an angle of view (Fig. 1; [0123]-[0129]).
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 Mukawa discloses the arrangement provides for an image display device capable of preventing occurrence of color irregularities (Mukawa: [0016]). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Re. Claim 2, Sears et al. and Mukawa render obvious the image display device as discussed above. However, Sears et al. and Mukawa fails to disclose an arrangement wherein the image forming unit includes a color filter.
Color filters are well-known in the art and commonly included in image forming units to form a desired color emission pattern, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have found the claimed arrangement obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for this well-known purpose. “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 3, Sears et al. and Mukawa render obvious the image display device as discussed above. Sears et al. does not disclose an arrangement wherein the image forming unit is arranged at a position where an incident angle formed by the image light emitted and a normal line of a surface of the light guide plate on which the image light is incident is inclined in a direction away from the second diffraction grating.
Mukawa disclose an arrangement wherein the image forming unit 11 is arranged at a position where an incident angle θi-C formed by the image light emitted and a normal line of a surface of the light guide plate 21 on which the image light is incident is inclined in a direction away from the second diffraction grating 40 (Fig. 1; [0135]-[0136]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found the claimed arrangement obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of providing an input signal to the waveguide at the desired angle. “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 4, Sears et al. and Mukawa render obvious the image display device as discussed above. Sears et al. additionally discloses each of the first diffraction grating 2452 and the second diffraction grating 2446 is a surface-relief type or volume type hologram ([Fig. 24; [0191], [0216], [0228]). The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the reasons discussed above.
Re. Claim 5, Sears et al. and Mukawa render obvious the image display device as discussed above. Sears et al. discloses the surface-relief type hologram (e.g., the first diffraction grating 2452) has a blazed shape including an overhang or a stepped shape (Fig. 24; [0228]). The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the reasons discussed above.
Re. Claims 6-7, Sears et al. and Mukawa render obvious the image display device as discussed above. However, Sears et al. and Mukawa fails to disclose an arrangement wherein in the light guide plate, a third diffraction grating is arranged at a location where grating vectors of the first diffraction grating and the second diffraction grating intersect each other, wherein a grating vector of the third diffraction grating intersects the grating vectors of the first diffraction grating and the second diffraction grating.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found the claimed arrangement obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of diffracting the light through the waveguide in a desired manner. “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, Sears et al. and Mukawa render obvious the image display device as discussed above. However, Sears et al. and Mukawa fails to disclose an arrangement wherein the second diffraction grating is arranged in a protruding shape with respect to a surface of the light guide plate.
Surface relief gratings are well known in the art, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have found the claimed arrangement obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Re. Claim 9, Sears et al. and Mukawa render obvious the image display device as discussed above. Sears et al. discloses the image display device also comprises the two image forming units for a right eye and a left eye; the two light guide plates for the right eye and the left eye; the two first diffraction gratings for the right eye and the left eye; and the two second diffraction grating for the right eye and the left eye, wherein an image is displayed by superimposing an image for the right eye and an image for the left eye ([0224]-[0225]). The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the reasons discussed above.
Re. Claim 10, Sears et al. and Mukawa render obvious the image display device as discussed above. Sears et al. and Mukawa fails to disclose an arrangement wherein a binocular vision region and a monocular vision region are displayed.
Binocular vision regions and monocular vision regions are well known in the art, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have found the claimed arrangement obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. “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 12, Sears et al. and Mukawa render obvious the image display device as discussed above. Sears et al. and Mukawa fails to disclose an arrangement wherein a binocular vision region is not displayed.
“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
Claims 11 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. Claim 11, the prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest an image display device as discussed above, wherein the binocular vision region displays a color region, and the monocular vision region displays a white region.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See the attached PTO-892.
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 2/10/26