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
Acknowledgement is made of the amendment filed 06/02/2026 which amended claim 1 and added new claims 9-20. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application for patent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-5, 9-12, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamamoto et al (US 2019/0196213; hereinafter referred to as Yamamoto).
Regarding Claim 1, Yamamoto teaches a display apparatus (Figure 10; Display Device 1J) configured to display an aerial image (Figure 10; Aerial Image I) using retroreflection (see Figure 10 and Paragraph [0123]), the apparatus (Figure 10; Display Device 1J) comprising:
a retroreflecting layer (Figure 10; Retro-Reflection Portion 6) in which a design including an opening for generating an aerial image (Figure 10; Aerial Image I) is formed (see Figure 10; wherein there exists openings between retro-reflection portions 6 which facilitate the generation of the aerial image I), wherein the design is defined by the opening formed in the retroreflecting layer (see Figure 10; wherein there exists openings between retro-reflection portions 6 which facilitate the generation of the aerial image I and create a “design”);
a light source (Figure 10; Display Portion 3) disposed on one principal surface side of the retroreflecting layer (see Figure 10); and
a beam splitter (Figure 10; Light Splitting Portion 4) disposed on another principal surface side of the retroreflecting layer (Figure 10; Retro-Reflection Portion 6) opposite to the one principal surface (see Figure 10),
wherein an aerial image (Figure 10; Aerial Image I) of the design is displayed above the beam splitter (see Figure 10; wherein the aerial image I is displayed above light splitting portion 4).
Regarding Claim 2, Yamamoto teaches the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above.
Yamamoto further teaches the opening (see Figure 10; wherein the opening corresponds to the gaps between the retro-reflection portions 6) is provided with a reflection inhibiting member (Figure 10; Light Blocking Portion 8) for reducing or eliminating diffused reflection of light (see Figure 10 and Paragraph [0066]; wherein it is disclosed that the first light blocking portion blocks the first emission light L1 or the surface-reflected light L4).
Regarding Claim 3, Yamamoto teaches the limitations of claim 2 as detailed above.
Yamamoto further teaches the reflection inhibiting member (Figure 10; Light Blocking Portion 8) comprises a light absorbing layer on an inner wall of the opening (see Figure 10 and Paragraph [0066]; wherein it is disclosed that the light blocking portion 8 is black paper, plastic, a metal plate, Raxa paper or a light absorbing sheet).
Regarding Claim 4, Yamamoto teaches the limitations of claim 3 as detailed above.
Yamamoto further teaches the light absorbing layer (Figure 10; Light Blocking Portion 8) comprises a layer coating the inner wall of the opening in black (see Figure 10 and Paragraph [0066]; wherein it is disclosed that the light blocking portion 8 is black paper, plastic, a metal plate, Raxa paper or a light absorbing sheet).
Regarding Claim 5, Yamamoto teaches the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above.
Yamamoto further teaches the reflection inhibiting member (Figure 10; Light Blocking Portion 8) comprises a light-transmissive optical element fitted in the opening (see Figure 10 and Paragraph [0061]; wherein it is disclosed that the retro-reflection portion 6 is a retro-reflection sheet and wherein it is inherent there is a light-transmissive optical element fitted in the opening due to the fact that the retro-reflecting portion 6 and light blocking portion 8 are not floating in space and must inherently be supported by a light-transmissive optical element which also allows light L1-L4 to pass therethrough).
Regarding Claim 9, Yamamoto teaches the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above.
Yamamoto further teaches the light source (Figure 10; Display Portion 3) is disposed directly below the retroreflecting layer (Figure 10; Retro-Reflection Portion 6) to irradiate the opening from below (see Figure 10).
Regarding Claim 10, Yamamoto teaches the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above.
Yamamoto further teaches the aerial image and the design are symmetric in position with respect to a surface of the beam splitter (see Figure 10).
Regarding Claim 11, Yamamoto teaches the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above.
Yamamoto further teaches the retroreflecting layer (Figure 10; Retro-Reflection Portion 6) is a film-like, sheet-like, or plate-like optical element (see Paragraph [0059]; wherein it is disclosed that the retro-reflection portion 6 is formed in a plate shape).
Regarding Claim 12, Yamamoto teaches the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above.
Yamamoto further teaches the retroreflecting layer (Figure 10; Retro-Reflection Portion 6) comprises a prism retroreflection element (see Figure 10).
Regarding Claim 18, Yamamoto teaches the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above.
Yamamoto further teaches the design comprises an icon for a user input operation (see Figure 10)
Regarding Claim 20, Yamamoto teaches the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above.
Yamamoto further teaches the beam splitter (Figure 10; Light Splitting Portion 4) is disposed above the retroreflecting layer (Figure 10; Retro-Reflection Portion 6) with an air gap therebetween (see Figure 10), and wherein a distance between the retroreflecting layer (Figure 10; Retro-Reflection Portion 6) and the beam splitter (Figure 10; Light Splitting Portion 4) defines a height at which the aerial image (Figure 10; Aerial Image I) is generated (see Figure 10).
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.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al (US 2019/0196213; hereinafter referred to as Yamamoto) as applied to claim 1, in view of Overes et al (US 2015/0355505; hereinafter referred to as Overes).
Regarding Claim 6, Yamamoto teaches the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above.
Yamamoto does not expressly disclose a diffusion layer between the light source and the retroreflecting layer.
Overes discloses a diffusion layer (Figure 1; Light Diffusing Surfaces 140) between a light source (Figure 1; Light Source 110) and a retroreflecting layer (Figure 1; Retroreflectors 130; Paragraph [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the display apparatus of Yamamoto such that a diffusion layer is between the light source and the retroreflecting layer, as taught by Overes, because doing so would reduce a loss of light energy and enable a higher energy efficiency of the lighting device (see Overes Paragraph [0043]).
Regarding Claim 7, Yamamoto as modified by Overes discloses the limitations of claim 6 as detailed above.
Overes further discloses the diffusion layer (Figure 1; Light Diffusing Surfaces 140) includes a protrusion to be fitted in the opening of the retroreflecting layer (see Figure 1; wherein the light diffusing structures 140 are fitted in openings of the retroreflectors 130).
Claims 8 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al (US 2019/0196213; hereinafter referred to as Yamamoto) in view of Yamamoto et al (US 2018/0284470; hereinafter referred to as Yamamoto ‘470).
Regarding Claim 8, Yamamoto teaches the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above.
Yamamoto does not expressly disclose a polarizer between the retroreflecting layer and the light source, wherein the retroreflecting layer includes a λ/4 phase film, and wherein the beam splitter comprises a polarizing beam splitter.
Yamamoto ’470 discloses a display apparatus (Figure 4; Display Device 1B) configured to display an aerial image (Figure 4; Aerial Image I) using retroreflection (see Figure 4), the apparatus (Figure 4; Display Device 1B) comprising: a retroreflecting layer (Figure 4; First Retro-Reflective Part 2A); a light source (Figure 4; Light Source S1) disposed on one principal surface side of the retroreflecting layer (see Figure 4); and a beam splitter (Figure 4; Light Splitting Part 4) disposed on another principal surface side of the retroreflecting layer (Figure 4; First Retro-Reflective Part 2A) opposite to the one principal surface (see Figure 4), wherein an aerial image (Figure 4; Aerial Image I) of the design is displayed above the beam splitter (see Figure 4; wherein the aerial image I is displayed above the light splitting part 4), and
a polarizer (Figure 4; Wavelength Plate 21) between the retroreflecting layer (Figure 4; First Retro-Reflective Part 2A) and the light source (Figure 4; Light Source S1), wherein the retroreflecting layer (Figure 4; First Retro-Reflective Part 2A) includes a λ/4 phase film (Figure 4; Wavelength Plate 22), and wherein the beam splitter (Figure 4; Light Splitting Part 4) comprises a polarizing beam splitter (see Paragraph [0090]; wherein the first light-separating part 4 is a reflective polarizing film, and others generally called a beam splitter may be exemplified).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the display apparatus of Yamamoto to include a polarizer between the retroreflecting layer and the light source, wherein the retroreflecting layer includes a λ/4 phase film, and wherein the beam splitter comprises a polarizing beam splitter, as taught by Yamamoto ‘470, because doing so would allow for a user to observe the aerial image displayed in the two areas from an observation direction on the side opposite to the first light source with respect to the first light-separating part (see Yamamoto ‘470 Paragraph [0096]).
Regarding Claim 16, Yamamoto as modified by Yamamoto ’470 discloses the limitations of claim 8 as detailed above.
Yamamoto ’470 further discloses the λ/4 phase film (Figure 4; Wavelength Plate 22) is provided on a surface of the retroreflecting layer (Figure 4; First Retro-Reflective Part 2A) and provides a phase difference between incident light and outgoing light (see Paragraphs [0101]-[0102]).
Regarding Claim 17, Yamamoto as modified by Yamamoto ’470 discloses the limitations of claim 16 as detailed above.
Yamamoto ’470 further discloses light passes through the λ/4 phase film (Figure 4; Wavelength Plate 22) twice to provide a phase difference of λ/2 between light incident on the retroreflecting layer (Figure 4; First Retro-Reflective Part 2A) and light exiting from the retroreflecting layer (see Figure 4 and Paragraphs [0101]-[0102]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-15, 19 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:
Regarding Claim 13, the prior art of record, whether taken alone or in combination, fails to teach, suggest or render obvious the limitations which require an upper surface of the diffusion layer is in contact with a bottom of the retroreflecting layer.
These limitations in combination with the limitations of claims 1 and 6 would render the claim non-obvious over the prior art of record if rewritten in independent form.
Regarding Claim 14, the prior art of record, whether taken alone or in combination, fails to teach, suggest or render obvious the limitations which require a height of the protrusion is selected so that an upper surface of the protrusion is substantially flush with an upper surface of the retroreflecting layer.
These limitations in combination with the limitations of claims 1, 6 and 7 would render the claim non-obvious over the prior art of record if rewritten in independent form.
Dependent claim 15 would likewise be non-obvious over the prior art of record if the abovementioned amendment were made.
Regarding Claim 19, the prior art of record, whether taken alone or in combination, fails to teach, suggest or render obvious the limitations which require a light-transmissive optical element fitted in the opening, wherein a bottom of the light transmissive optical element is substantially flush with a bottom of the retroreflecting layer.
These limitations in combination with the other limitations of claim 19 would render the claim non-obvious over the prior art of record if rewritten in independent form.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant alleges on pages 6-7 that the gaps between the separate retro-reflection portions 6 are simply spaces between distinct components, not “openings” formed within a retroreflecting layer that define a design.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the argument presented by the applicant.
In response, the examiner maintains that the claim language does not preclude the retroreflective structure presented in Yamamoto from being interpreted as having openings. The drawings clearly depict gaps/spaces between the retroreflective portions thereby satisfying the claim language which requires an opening formed in the retroreflecting layer.
All of the arguments presented by the applicant have been considered in their entirety, but they are not persuasive.
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 CHRISTOPHER A LAMB II whose telephone number is (571)270-0648. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am - 5pm 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, 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.
/CHRISTOPHER A LAMB II/Examiner, Art Unit 2882
Prosecution Insights