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.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 14-15 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention or Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/09/2026. Although Applicant identified Claims 1-19 as encompassing Invention I and Species A, it is determined that Claim 14 is drawn to Species C and Claim 15 is drawn to Species B.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I and Species A drawn to Fig. 1 in the reply filed on 3/09/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
(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.
Claims 1, 6, 16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20200249754 A1 to Morozov et al.
Regarding Claim 1. Morozov discloses an image display apparatus, comprising: an image forming unit that emits image light (Fig. 9 the image forming device 20); a light guide plate that allows image light emitted from the image forming unit to enter the light guide plate, travel inside the light guide plate, and be emitted outward from the light guide plate (Fig. 9 light guide plate 8); a first optical element that allows the image light entering the light guide plate to be refracted and travel inside the light guide plate (Fig. 9 input coupler 7); and a second optical element that allows the image light traveling inside the light guide plate to be refracted and emitted outward from the light guide plate (Fig. 9 output coupler 9), wherein at least one pair of reflective curved surfaces is formed on side surfaces of the light guide plate (See Fig. 8 light guide plate 8 para 85 “the display apparatus 200 may include any of the eye-tracking devices 100′, 110, 120, and 130 of FIGS. 5 through 8”), the at least one pair of reflective curved surfaces reflecting the image light refracted by the first optical element in a direction of the second optical element (as shown in Fig. 8 para 84“ the light guide plate 8 having a curved shape”).
Regarding Claim 6. Morozov further discloses an effective light beam that enters the reflective curved surface satisfies a total internal reflection condition (See at least Fig. 8 and Fig. 9).
Regarding Claim 16. Morozov further discloses the image forming unit has an image generation unit that emits the image light (Fig. 9 spatial light modulator 24) and an optical system that converts the image light emitted from the image generation unit into collimated light for an angle of view (Fig. 9 collimating lens 5).
Regarding Claim 18. Morozov further discloses the light guide plate includes a plurality of stacked light guide plates (See at least Fig. 9 beam splitter 6 stacked with light guide plate 8).
Regarding Claim 19. Morozov further discloses the image display apparatus is an eyewear attached to vicinity of a user's eye (See Fig. 11-13).
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.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200249754 A1 to Morozov et al. as applied to claim 1 in view of US 20170067619 A1 to Son et al.
Regarding Claim 2. As stated above Morozov discloses all the limitations of base claim 1.
Morozov does not specifically disclose that the one pair of reflective curved surfaces is formed with different curvature radii.
However, Son discloses a pair of reflective surfaces and at least the radius of curvature the parabolic reflecting surface may be set based on an angle at which the beam is incident and reflected (See Fig. 1 and para 49). The radius of curvature the one pair of reflective curved surfaces are result-effective variables. In that, one having ordinary skill in the art will design the curved surfaces with a radius of curvature based on the based on incident and reflection required.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to include that the one pair of reflective curved surfaces is formed with different curvature radii is based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
Regarding Claim 3. Morozov does not specifically disclose that a magnification of the curvature radius of the reflective curved surface on an output side for the image light with respect to the reflective curved surface on an input side for the image light is a value larger than 1.
However, Son discloses a pair of reflective surfaces and at least the radius of curvature the parabolic reflecting surface may be set based on an angle at which the beam is incident and reflected (See Fig. 1 and para 49). The radius of curvature the one pair of reflective curved surfaces are result-effective variables. In that, one having ordinary skill in the art will design the curved surfaces with a radius of curvature based on the incident and reflection required.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to include that a magnification of the curvature radius of the reflective curved surface on an output side for the image light with respect to the reflective curved surface on an input side for the image light is a value larger than 1 is based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
Regarding Claim 5. Son further discloses a shape of the reflective curved surface is a shape selected from a group consisting of a parabolic surface shape, an elliptical surface shape, a spherical surface shape, a non-spherical surface shape, and a combination thereof (para 49).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200249754 A1 to Morozov et al. as applied to claim 1 in view of US 20180149873 A1 to Edwin et al.
Regarding Claim 7. As stated above Morozov discloses all the limitations of base claim 1.
Morozov does not specifically disclose a reflective coating is applied to the reflective curved surface.
However, Edwin discloses a reflective coating is applied to the reflective curved surface (para 45 “may include a partially reflective coating”), as the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP2143(I)(B), KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to include a reflective coating is applied to the reflective curved surface.
Regarding Claim 8. Edwin further discloses the reflective coating is a metal film coating and/or a multi-layer film coating (para 45).
Claims 9- are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200249754 A1 to Morozov et al. as applied to claim 1
Regarding Claim 9. As stated above Morozov discloses all the limitations of base claim 1.
Morozov does not specifically disclose that the first optical element and the second optical element have same pitch and same direction.
However, Morozov discloses that the diffraction gratings can be modified according to propagation direction or diffracting light incident in a specific angle range, according to a size, a height, a period, etc. of the grating patterns (para 56). The pitch and direction of the first optical element and the second optical element are result-effective variables. In that, one having ordinary skill in the art will design the diffraction pattern based on the propagation direction and diffraction of light.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to include that the first optical element and the second optical element have same pitch and same direction is based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
Regarding Claim 10. Morozov further discloses the first optical element and the second optical element are surface relief diffraction gratings (para 56 and para 91).
Regarding Claim 11. Morozov further discloses the first optical element and the second optical element are holographic optical elements (para 56 and para 91).
Regarding Claim 12. Morozov further discloses both the first optical element and the second optical element are reflection-type diffraction gratings or transmission-type diffraction gratings (para 56 and para 91).
Regarding Claim 13. Morozov further discloses the first optical element and the second optical element are either a reflection-type diffraction grating or a transmission-type diffraction grating (para 56 and para 91).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200249754 A1 to Morozov et al. as applied to claim 1 in view of US 20110109528 A1 to Mun et al.
Regarding Claim 17. As stated above Morozov discloses all the limitations of base claim 1.
Morozov does not specifically disclose that the image forming unit has a color filter.
However, Mun discloses the image forming unit has a color filter (Fig. 4B a color filter 56), to display color images.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to include that the image forming unit has a color filter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDMOND C LAU whose telephone number is (571)272-5859. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-6pm EST.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571) 272-9791. 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.
/EDMOND C LAU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871