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 .
Remark
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed on April 15, 2026, which has been entered into the file.
By this amendment, the applicant has amened claims 1-3, 5-7, 11, 13-15, and 17-19.
Claims 1-20 remain pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2-4, 5-7 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
The specification and the claims fail to teach how to derive or make the expression “|b| x 2 x Cos(a)
≤
|F| -|qA -qB|” recited in claim 2. Cos(a) is known in the art as trigonometry relationship between sides of a triangle. It is therefore not clear what is the physical meaning of the expression of a multiple product between an angle and the trigonometric relation and therefore one skilled in the art would not be able to make or derive the expression.
The specification and the claims fail to teach how to derive or make the expression “ T > (- 2.3576 ×λ + 0.0952) × |F| + (22.3540 ×λ - 0.9125)” recited in claims 6, 14 and 18, and the expression “T < (- 3.8645 ×λ - 0.2185) × |F| + (37.4910 ×λ + 1.5298)” recited in claims 7, 15, and 19. Specifically, it is not clear if the thickness in the expressions is derived based on what specific physical condition. Namely, it is not clear if the thickness is derived based on maximum diffraction efficiency of the hologram or not. While the thickness may be dependent on the wavelength of the light, it is not clear the coefficients and the constants in the expressions referred to what physical properties. The specification and the claims therefore do not enable one skilled in the art to make or derive the expressions.
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) 1-8 and 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication by Yoshikaie (US 2020/0057307 A1) in view of the US patent application publication by Mukawa (US 2006/0291021 A1).
Claim 1 has been amended to necessitate the new grounds of rejection.
Yoshikaie teaches, with regard to claim 1, an image display apparatus serves as the optical system that is comprised of a display (53, Figure 4) that emits a light flux visually recognized by an observer as an image, a light guide plate (30) serves as the light guide body that replicates the flux, (please see Figure 4), wherein the light guide body includes an incident surface (please see Figure 4) on which the light flux from the display is incident and an emission surface from which the light flux is emitted from the light guide body wherein a light beam at a center of the light flux emitted from the display is incident on the incident surface of the light guide body and wherein the light flux incident on the incident surface of the light guide body is changed in a traveling direction by diffraction by a diffraction structure of a holographic diffraction grating (41, please see paragraph [0073]) of a coupling region in the light guide body. Yoshikaie teaches, with regard to amendment to claim 1, the light flux travels in the light guide body by repeating total reflection, (please see Figure 4).
Yoshikaie further teaches that light flux changed in the traveling direction is emitted from the emission surface (please see Figures 1A, 1B and 4), after being expanded by being replicated in a first direction corresponding to a horizontal direction (please see Figure 8A) of the image visually recognized by the observer due to the diffraction by a diffraction structure (43) of an expansion region in the light guide body a second direction corresponding to a vertical direction of the image by the diffraction structure (42). With regard to amendment to claim 1, Yoshikaie teaches to form an expanded exit pupil, (please see paragraph [0135]).
As shown in Figures 1A and 1B, a normal direction with respect to the surface of the light guide body at a center or a center of gravity of the expansion region is defined as a Z-axis direction and a tangential plane is defined as XY plane. A traveling direction of a center light beam of the light flux incident on the expansion region on the XY plane is defined as a Y-axis and a direction perpendicular to the Y-axis is defined as X-axis.
Although the X-axis and the Y-axis disclosed are not exactly the same as the claims, such modification is considered to be obvious to one skilled in the art since it only involved rearranging the position of the expansion region.
The diffraction structure of the expansion region (43, Figures 1A, 1B, 4 and 8A) is configured such that a light flux duplicated when the light flus incident on the expansion region is transmitted through the XY plane of the expansion region from a positive direction of the Z axis (please see Figure 4) and a light flux duplicated when the light flux is transmitted through the XY plane of the expansion region from a negative direction of the Z-axis are accommodated within a viewing angle at which the image is visually recognized.
As shown in Figure 4, Yoshikaie teaches that the diffraction structure of the coupling regions (41 and 42) and the expansion region (43) may comprise volume holographic diffraction grating, (please see [0073]) and as shown in Figure 4, the diffractive structure or the interference fringes of the volume holographic diffraction grating may be inclined with respect to the Z-axis direction. Mukawa in the same field of endeavor teaches an optical waveguide with volume hologram for coupling the incident light flux and duplicated within the waveguide wherein the volume hologram has diffractive structure or interference fringes that are inclined with the Z-axis direction wherein the inclined diffractive structure allows the light flux to be diffracted in a desired direction. It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Mukawa to specifically make the diffractive structure of expansion region to have an inclination with respect to Z-axis direction for the benefit of allowing the light flux to be diffracted to a desired direction.
Claim 1 has been amended to include the phrase “in a cross-section view taken along a direction perpendicular to the diffraction structure of the expansion an extending direction of interference fringes arranged as the diffractive structure of the expansion region is inclined with respect to the Z-axis direction”.
As shown in Figure 4 of Yoshikaie the interference fringes of diffraction structure (41, Figure 4) may have an extending direction that is inclined with respect to the Z-axis direction, which is normal to the diffraction structure. Mukawa also teaches that the extending direction of the interference fringes (124, Figure 3) arranged as the diffractive structure of the expansion region is inclined with respect to Z-axis direction, (which is normal to the diffractive structure).
With regard to amended claim 2, Yoshikaie teaches that viewing angle of the image viewed by the observer is defined as plus and minus F degrees, (please see Figure 4). An angle between the extending direction of the interference fringe arranged as the diffractive structure of the expansion region (43) on the XY plane and the traveling direction of the light flux incident on the expansion region is defined as a angles. Yoshikaie in light of Mukawa teach, with regard to amendment to claim 2, that an inclination angle between the extending direction of the interference fringes arranged as the diffractive structure and the Z-axis in a cross-sectional vie taken along a direction perpendicular to the diffractive structure of the expansion region is defined as b angles and it is different from zero. An angle between a center light beam of the light flux incident on the expansion region and Z axis is defined as qA degrees and an angle between the center light beam of the light flux diffracted and emitted in the expansion region and the Z axis is defined a qB degrees. As shown in Figure 4 of Yoshikaie, the light flux is traveling in the XY plane which makes the qA and qB are zero, which makes |qA -qB| < |F|/2. As for the expression |b| x 2 x Cos(a)
≤
|F| -|qA -qB|, it is implicitly met since as shown in Figure 8A, that the angle a assumes 135 degrees that Cos(a) has a value of -0.707. This makes the expression to be held.
With regard to amended claim 3, Yoshikaie teaches that the optical system has two expansion regions, wherein one of the expansion regions expands the exit pupil in the first direction, (please see paragraph [0135]) by duplicating the light flux independent on the one of the expansion regions (43, Figure 8A) in the first direction corresponding to horizontal direction of the image visually recognized by the observer and wherein another of the expansion regions (42) expands by duplicating light flux incident on the other of the expansion regions in the second direction corresponding to the vertical direction of the image visually recognized by the observer.
With regard to claim 4, the relational expression is implicitly met by the expansion region.
With regard to amended claims 5, 13 and 17, Yoshikaie teaches that the diffractive structure of the expansion region comprises volume holographic diffraction grating, (please see paragraph [0073]) configured to diffract and replicate the light flux.
With regard to amended claims 6, 7, 11, 14, 15, 18 and 19, Yoshikaie in light of Mukawa teach that the volume holographic diffraction grating has a definite thickness and be measured in microns in the Z axis direction. Although these references do not teach explicitly that the thickness satisfies the claimed expressions, such feature is either implicitly met or obvious modified by one skilled in the art since the thickness is essential for making the volume holographic diffractive grating have a desired diffraction efficiency.
With regard to claims 8, 12, 16 and 20, Yoshikaie teaches that the light beam center of the light flux emitted from the display is incident while being inclined with respect to the normal direction of the incident surface of the light guide body and the light beam at the center of the light flux emitted from the light guide body is emitted while being inclined with respect to the a normal direction of the emission surface of the light guide body, (please see Figure 4).
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshikaie and Mukawa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of the US patent application publication by Kern (US 2021/0141224 A1).
The image display taught by Yoshikaie in combination with the teachings of Mukawa as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations.
With regard to claims 9 and 10, these references do not further teach a head up display includes a light transmitting member and the image display apparatus. Kern in the same field of endeavor teaches an image display apparatus including a light guide body (5, Figures 2 and 4) and a light transmitting member or windshield (31) that reflects the light flux emitted from the light guide body and the head up display system displays the image as a virtual image so as to be superimposed on a real view visually recognizable through the light-transmitting member. The light transmitting member is a windshield (31, Figure 4 and paragraph [0043]). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Kern to modify the image display apparatus of Yoshikaie to have the advantage of further being utilized as a head up display.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 15, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The newly amended claims have been fully considered and rejected for the reasons set forth above.
In response to applicant’s arguments concerning the rejections of claims under 35 USC 112, first paragraph, applicant states that the expression |b| x 2 x Cos(a) is referred to the separation amount between the two peaks of diffraction efficiency, the examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons stated below. It is noted that a measured angle of the interference fringes and a trigonometry expression, which is defined by ratio of two sides of a right triangle, cannot be related to an abstract diffraction efficiency.
In response to applicant’s arguments which state that the cited Yoshikaie does not teach that the light guide to replicate the light flux using hologram volume and does not have an expansion, the examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons stated below. Yoshikaie explicitly teaches that the light guide (30) replicate the light flux via total internal reflection, (please Figure 4). The light flux is input by a diffractive structure (41) that may be volume holographic element, (please see paragraph [0073]). Yoshikaie further teaches that the diffractive structures at the incident surface and the emission surface creates an expanded exit pupil at a viewer’s eye, (please see Figure 1B).
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 AUDREY Y CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2309. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 9:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Stephone B Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
AUDREY Y. CHANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/AUDREY Y CHANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights