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 statements (IDS) submitted on 1/10/2024, 4/11/2024, and 12/16/2024 were considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frayne et al. (US 2018/0188549) in view of Johnson et al. (US 2018/0031757).
Regarding Claim 1, Frayne discloses an aerial display apparatus (Fig. 2, aerial display 100, Paragraph 0042, lines 1-4, Fig. 19) comprising:
a display device (Fig. 2, light source 110, Paragraph 0042, line 15, Fig. 10, light source 610) configured to display an image (Paragraph 0047, light source 110 can be a display, lines 1-14); and
an optical device arranged to receive light from the display device (Fig. 4, beamsplitter 120, Paragraph 0042, lines 5-10, Fig. 19, beamsplitter 620) and reflecting the light from the display device to a side opposite to the display device (Fig. 2 and Fig. 4, beamsplitter 120, reflects light along path 4 towards the viewers, the side being opposite the display device 110 along the optical path, as shown),
wherein the optical device includes a planar base member (Fig. 4, beamsplitter 120 is planar on both sides, as shown, Fig. 19, beamsplitter 620) and
the optical device is arranged in such a manner as to be capable of receiving, on the incident surface, light that is included in the light from the display device and contributes to image formation (Fig. 4, the incident surface is the bottom side of the beamsplitter 120, as shown, Fig. 2, bottom side of beamsplitter 120 receives light ray portion 1, as shown, Fig. 19),
and the optical device is configured to form an aerial image in an aerial space (Fig. 4, the plane of convergence in free space, Paragraph 0042, lines 28-31), on the side opposite to the display device (Fig. 4, the side being opposite the display device 110 along the optical path, as shown, Fig. 19).
Frayne does not specifically disclose a plurality of optical elements provided below the base member as viewed from a viewer, each extending in a first direction and aligned in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction,
each of the optical elements has an incident surface and a reflection surface which are inclined with respect to a normal direction of the base member and are in contact with each other.
However, Johnson, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a plurality of optical elements (Fig. 5, prisms 541) provided below the base member (Fig. 5, prisms 541 are below the base member 545) as viewed from a viewer (Fig. 5, viewer is in the +Z direction), each extending in a first direction (Fig. 5, viewer is in the -Z direction) and aligned in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction (Fig. 5, prisms 541 are aligned in the X direction, as shown),
each of the optical elements has an incident surface (see annotated Fig. 6B, below) and a reflection surface (see annotated Fig. 6B, below) which are inclined with respect to a normal direction (see annotated Fig. 6B, the incident surface and reflection surface are at an angle with respect to the Z direction) of the base member and are in contact with each other (see annotated Fig. 6B, the incident surface and reflection surface are in contact with each other at position Vprism), for the purpose of deviating the incident light (Paragraph 0066, lines 1-7).
PNG
media_image1.png
496
456
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the aerial display of Frayne with a plurality of optical elements provided below the base member as viewed from a viewer, each extending in a first direction and aligned in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction, each of the optical elements has an incident surface and a reflection surface which are inclined with respect to a normal direction of the base member and are in contact with each other, of Johnson, for the purpose of deviating the incident light (Paragraph 0066, lines 1-7).
Regarding Claim 2, Frayne in view of Johnson discloses as is set forth above and Johnson further discloses wherein an angle of the reflection surface with respect to the normal direction of the base member is set such that an incident angle of light incident on the reflection surface is larger than a critical angle (See annotated Fig. 6B, above, the beams from 634-2 are reflected from second surface 641b as rays 610B, therefore the light incident angle is greater than a critical angle, since the light rays are reflected), for the purpose of deviating the incident light (Paragraph 0066, lines 1-7).
Regarding Claim 3, Frayne in view of Johnson discloses as is set forth above and Johnson further discloses wherein an angle of the incident surface with respect to the normal direction of the base member is set such that an incident angle of light incident on the incident surface is smaller than a critical angle (See annotated Fig. 6B, above, the beams from 634-2 enter first surface 641b as rays 610B, therefore the light incident angle is smaller than a critical angle, since the light rays enter the surface), for the purpose of deviating the incident light (Paragraph 0066, lines 1-7).
Regarding Claim 6, Frayne in view of Johnson discloses as is set forth above and Frayne further discloses wherein the display device and the optical device are arranged obliquely with respect to each other (Fig. 4, the beamsplitter 120 and the display device 110 are at an oblique angle).
Regarding Claim 7, Frayne in view of Johnson discloses as is set forth above and Frayne further discloses further comprising: a light control device arranged between the display device and the optical device and transmitting part of the light from the display device (Fig. 19, lenticular lens 640).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, and 8 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: with respect to the allowable subject matter, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach of the claimed combination of limitations to warrant a rejection under 35 USC 102 or 103.
Specifically, with respect to claim 4, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach of an aerial display including, as the distinguishing feature(s) in combination with the other limitations, wherein the optical device forms an aerial image at a position parallel to the optical device.
Specifically, with respect to claim 5, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach of an aerial display including, as the distinguishing feature(s) in combination with the other limitations, wherein the display device and the optical device are arranged in parallel to each other.
Specifically, with respect to claim 8, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach of an aerial display including, as the distinguishing feature(s) in combination with the other limitations, wherein the light control device includes a plurality of transparent members and a plurality of light shielding members which are alternately arranged, and the light shielding members are inclined with respect to a normal direction of the light control device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Daiku (US 2024/0427169), Brott et al. (US 2011/0149391), and Kim et al. (US 2018/0067329) are cited to show similar display apparatuses.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM R ALEXANDER whose telephone number is (571)270-7656. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM- 4:00 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 on (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 R ALEXANDER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872