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 .
Status of Claims
Claim 9 is cancelled. Claims 1-8 and 10-13 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-8 and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasezawa et al. (WO 2013118698) in view of Butler et al. (US PG Pub. 20100149182).
Regarding claim 1, Kasezawa discloses a floating projection device (stereoscopic image projection apparatus of fig. 4), comprising:
a mirror structure (semi-transmissive region 2 and reflective layer 5 of fig. 3);
an optical structure (pg. 7 3rd para.; one of the two quarter-wave plate 6 of fig. 3), covering the mirror structure (5), forms an accommodating space (location where the light reflections 15, 16 and 17 are reflecting between reflection elements) with the mirror structure (illustrated in fig. 3);
an optical coating (second of the two quarter-wave plate 6 of fig. 3), disposed on the optical structure (5); and
a display (object 20 of fig. 1), disposed in the accommodating space formed between the optical structure and the mirror structure (illustrated in fig. 1), is configured to transmit a plurality of image light beams to the optical structure (illustrated in fig. 3),
wherein a display image (image 30 of fig. 1) is imaged outside the accommodating space and adjacent to an outer surface of the optical structure (pg. 5 last para., the image of the object can be projected on any position on the housing).
Kasezawa fails to disclose the display between the mirror structure.
Butler discloses a volumetric display system comprising the display (emissive display 511 of fig. 5) located between the mirror structure (parabolic mirrors 311 and 312 of fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the application to modify projection device of Kasezawa with the emissive display of Butler in order to create a volumetric display that enables a user to interact with the displayed object (Butler; para. 0005)
Regarding claim 2, Kasezawa discloses wherein the optical coating (6) is disposed on an inner surface of the optical structure facing the mirror structure (illustrated in fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Kasezawa discloses wherein the optical coating (pg. 3 2nd para.; discloses a Holographic optical element or HOE is an optical element that utilizes the optical characteristics (angle selectivity, diffraction efficiency, wavelength selectivity, etc.)) comprises a phase retardation film layer and a polarization selective reflective film layer (HOE’s may be designed to provide both polarization-selective reflection and phase retardation).
Regarding claim 4, Kasezawa discloses the use of an HOE which may comprise both a phase retardation element and a polarization element.
Kasezawa fails to teach the disclosed orientation of the elements within the HOE; however, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the application to try choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success to orient the optical elements in a way to achieve the best image.
Regarding claim 5, Kasezawa discloses wherein the image light beams are reflected a first time on an inner surface of the optical structure (illustrated in fig. 3) and generate a plurality of first reflected beams (illustrated in fig. 3), the first reflected beams are reflected a second time on a reflective surface of the mirror structure and generate a plurality of second reflected beams (illustrated in fig. 3), the second reflected beams transmit the inner surface of the optical structure and form a display image which is a real image (illustrated in fig. 3).
Regarding claims 6, 7 and 8, Kasezawa discloses wherein the display projects the image light beams as a circularly polarized light of a first handedness (via quarter-wave plate 6 of fig. 3), the phase retardation film layer converts the image light beams into a linearly polarized light in a first direction (after beams have been reflected twice the beams are converted to linear polarization because the quarter-wave plate may be on both surfaces as indicated on pg. 3 2nd para.), the polarization selective reflective film layer reflects the image light beams of the linearly polarized light in the first direction to generate the first reflected beams, the phase retardation film layer then converts the first reflected beams into the circularly polarized light of the first handedness (pg. 3 2nd para.; discloses a Holographic optical element or HOE is an optical element that utilizes the optical characteristics (angle selectivity, diffraction efficiency, wavelength selectivity, etc.))).
Regarding claim 10, Kasezawa discloses wherein the mirror structure (1) and the optical structure (5) have a first curvature radius (curvature of mirror 1) and a second curvature radius (curvature of optical structure 5) respectively, and the first curvature radius and the second curvature radius are real numbers other than zero (pg. 5 1st para.; The focal length of the parabolic mirror 1 (distance from the vertex O1 to the focal point F1) is preferably equal to the focal length of the parabolic mirror 4 (distance from the vertex O2 to the focal point F2)).
Regarding claim 11, Kasezawa discloses wherein a concave surface (mirror 1) of the mirror structure faces a concave surface of the optical structure (reflective layer 5) (illustrated in fig. 3).
Regarding claim 12, Kasezawa discloses wherein one of the mirror structure and the optical structure is a planar structure (illustrated in fig. 4).
Kasezawa fails to teach wherein the other one of the mirror structure has a curvature radius the curvature radius is a real number other than zero; however, as disclosed on (pg. 8 para. 2-5.; the first reflecting means is constituted by a circular flat plate, and the second reflecting means 4c is constituted by a circular flat plate larger than the circular shape, and the casing is a truncated cone. 4 and 5, the reflecting means is formed in a flat plate shape, but is not limited thereto, and may be formed in a curved surface shape; further, since the reflecting means can be configured in a flat plate shape by the holographic optical element, the thickness (height) of the housing is higher than that in the first or second embodiment in which the parabolic mirrors are superimposed.) Can be made thinner, saving space).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the application to modify the display device of Kasezawa wherein one of the reflecting surfaces is flat and a reflection element being curved concave in order to save space (Kasezawa; para. 5th para.).
Regarding claim 13, Kasezawa discloses a transparent structure (semi-transparent region 2 of figs. 1 and 3);
Kasezawa fails to teach wherein the optical structure is transparent; however, because optical elements within the display device are essentially reversed It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the application to modify the optical structure of Kasezawa in order to provide a floating image emanating from the display device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues on page 5 that the display image is not adjacent to an outer surface of the optical structure.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Illustrated in fig. 1, the display image 30 is on the outer surface of the accommodating space (area containing light rays 15, 16 and 17 of fig. 1) and “close” to the optical structure (which is illustrated in fig. 3).
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 DANELL L OWENS whose telephone number is (571)270-5365. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00pm M-F.
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, Minh-Toan Ton can be reached at 571-272-2303. 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.
/DANELL L OWENS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2882
1 October 2026
/BAO-LUAN Q LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882
Prosecution Insights