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 2/1/2024 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) 1-7, 19-21, 23, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sekiguchi et al (US 2017/0322417 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Sekiguchi et al discloses a display apparatus (page 3, section [0065], Figure 1, “1”), comprising: an image light generation apparatus that generates image light (Figure 1, “11”); and a light guide plate (Figure 1, “20”) that guides the image light from the image light generation apparatus to an eyeball (Figure 1, “E”), wherein the light guide plate includes a light guide plate main body including a light incident surface upon which the image light enters (Figure 1, “12, 20b”), and an optical surface group including a plurality of optical surfaces that guides the image light via the light incident surface (Figure 1, “27, 20c”), at least one reflection surface that is provided inside the light guide plate main body and reflects the image light via the optical surface group to a side of the eyeball (page 4, sections [0070]-[0072], Figure 1, “30” & Figure 2, “30a, 25”), and at least one light-shielding portion that is provided in the light guide plate main body and shields a stray light component of the image light (Figure 2, “26,” re: light absorption layer).
Regarding claim 2, Sekiguchi et al discloses wherein the light-shielding portion is provided inside the light guide plate main body (Figure 2, “26”).
Regarding claim 3, Sekiguchi et al discloses wherein the light-shielding portion is located between a virtual surface (Figure 2, re: Virtual Surface) and the light incident surface (Figure 1, “20b”), the virtual surface including the reflection surface (Figure 2, “25”).
PNG
media_image1.png
286
344
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
382
344
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Sekiguchi et al discloses wherein the stray light component is light of the image light, the light excluding light that is guided to the reflection surface via the light incident surface and the optical surface group (page 5, section [0079], Figure 2, “L2”).
Regarding claim 5, Sekiguchi et al discloses wherein the light-shielding portion (Figure 2, “26”) is located at a position deviated from an optical path of the image light between the light incident surface (Figure 2, “20b”) and the optical surface group (Figure 2, “20c”).
Regarding claim 6, Sekiguchi et al discloses wherein at least a portion of the light-shielding portion (Figure 2, “26”) is located between the light incident surface (Figure 2, “20b”) and the reflection surface (Figure 2, “25”).
Regarding claim 7, Sekiguchi et al discloses wherein the light-shielding portion (Figure 2, “26”) is provided at least on a back side of the reflection surface (Figure 2, “25”).
Regarding claim 19, Sekiguchi et al discloses wherein the reflection surface is a plane surface (Figure 2, “25”).
Regarding claim 20, Sekiguchi et al discloses wherein the light-shielding portion absorbs at least a portion of the stray light component entering the light-shielding portion (page 5, section [0079], Figure 2, “L2”).
Regarding claim 21, Sekiguchi et al discloses wherein the light-shielding portion includes paint (page 5, section [0079], Figure 2, “L2”).
Regarding claim 23, Sekiguchi et al discloses wherein the light-shielding portion includes a light-shielding film (page 5, section [0079], Figure 2, “L2”).
Regarding claim 27, Sekiguchi et al discloses wherein the light-shielding portion is provided in the light incident surface (Figure 2, “20b, 26”).
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) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sekiguchi et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mitsuta et al (JP 2006-126875A – Translation).
Regarding claim 22, Sekiguchi et al discloses as set forth above, but does not specifically disclose wherein the light-shielding portion includes a metal thin film.
Within the same field of endeavor, Mitsuta et al teaches that it is desirable in display apparatuses having light guide plates for light shielding portions to comprise metal thin films for the purpose of ensuring placement and easy provision of the light shielding layer (page 11, last 4 paragraphs). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made for the light-shielding portion of includes a metal thin film of Sekiguchi et al to include a metal thin film since Mitsuta et al teaches that it is desirable for the purpose of ensuring placement and easy provision of the light shielding layer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-18 and 24-26 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the claimed features as presented in claims 8-18: a display apparatus as claimed, specifically wherein the plurality of optical surfaces includes a first optical surface that totally internally reflects the image light via the light incident surface, and a second optical surface that faces the light incident surface and bends the image light totally internally reflected on the first optical surface toward the reflection surface.
The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the claimed features as presented in claim 24: a display apparatus as claimed, specifically wherein the light guide plate further includes an incident lens, the incident lens being joined to the light incident surface and allowing the image light to enter the light guide plate main body, the light-shielding film is arranged in a portion between the light incident surface and the incident lens, and an adhesive layer is arranged in another portion between the light incident surface and the incident lens.
The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the claimed features as presented in claim 25: a display apparatus as claimed, specifically wherein the light guide plate further includes an incident lens, the incident lens being joined to the light incident surface and allowing the image light to enter the light guide plate main body, the light-shielding film is arranged in a recess provided in a surface of the incident lens on a side of the light incident surface or in the light incident surface, and an adhesive layer is arranged between a surface in a periphery of the recess of one of the surface on the side of the light incident surface and the light incident surface, in which the recess is provided, and the light-shielding film and the other of the surface on the side of the light incident surface and the light incident surface, in which the recess is not provided.
The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the claimed features as presented in claim 26: a display apparatus as claimed, specifically wherein the light guide plate further includes an incident lens, the incident lens being joined to the light incident surface and allowing the image light to enter the light guide plate main body, the light-shielding film is arranged in a portion between the light incident surface and the incident lens, a light-transmitting film is arranged in another portion between the light incident surface and the incident lens, and an adhesive layer is arranged between the light-shielding film and the light-transmitting film and the light incident surface and/or between the light-shielding film and the light- transmitting film and the incident lens.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-2324. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday, 9:00 am - 6:00 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, Pinping Sun can be reached at (571) 270-1284. 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.
/WILLIAM CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 December 23, 2025