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 June 8, 2026, which has been entered into the file.
By this amendment, the applicant has amended claims 1, 3, 5, 11, 13, 16, 17 and 20 and has canceled claims 2, 6-7, 14-15 and 18-19.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-13, 16, 17 and 20 remain pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-13, 16, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 has been amended to include the phrase “a coupling region and an expansion region which both has a diffraction structure” and the phrase “a diffraction structure of the coupling region” that is confusing and indefinite since it is not clear if the diffraction structure are the same or not.
Claim 1 has been amended to include the phrase “diffraction by transmitting a diffraction structure” that is confusing and indefinite since it is not clear how to transmit a diffraction structure.
Claims 3-5, 8-13, 16, 17 and 20 inherit the rejection from their base claim.
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, 3-5, 8, 11-13, 16, 17 and 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 Horikawa (US 2016/0349508 A1) and US patent application publication by Erler et al (US 2019/0187465 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 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). 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 flux 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 Figures 1B and 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 combined and emitted from the expansion regions, (please see Figures 1B and 4).
This reference has met all the limitations of the claims. It however does not teach explicitly that “the diffraction structure of the expansion region exists inside the light guide body in the Z-axis direction” and “a coherence length of the light flux diffracted and emitted in the expansion region in the light guide body is smaller than twice a shorter interval between the diffraction structure and each of a front surface and a back surface of the light guide body”.
Horikawa in the same field of endeavor teaches a display apparatus that is comprised of a substrate (4, Figure 1A), serves as the light guide body, with a diffraction grating (5) of an expansion region that is placed inside the light guide body in the thickness or Z-axis direction. Horikawa further teaches that the coherence length of the display light should be shorted than a distance of propagation of the display light beam due to undergoing the internal reflection once, (please see paragraph [0021]). This condition is to ensure the display light beams propagate through the light guide body and emitted from the expansion region be incoherent to each other so that unwanted interference among these display light beams to occur. The propagate distance for total internal reflection once (TIR) is demonstrated below.
PNG
media_image1.png
575
432
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This means the coherence length has to be at least shorter than twice of the thickness or the shorter interval between the diffraction structure (5) and the surface of the light guide body. It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Horikawa to alternatively make the diffraction structure being placed inside the light guide body for the benefit of providing a different design for the display system. Also, it is obvious for one skilled in the art to make the coherent length of the display light beam or light flux to be shorter than the shorter interval between the surface of the light guide body and the diffraction structure so that the light propagated through the light guide body and at the expansion and emitted region to be incoherent to each other to reduce unwanted speckle noise.
Claim 1 has been amended to include the phrase “a coupling region and an expansion region which both has a diffraction structure in the light guide body”.
Yoshikaie teaches that the coupling region (41, Figures 4 and 8A) and the expansion region (43) both has a volume holographic diffraction grating, (please see paragraph [0132]). These references however do not teach that they are in the light guide body.
Erler et al in the same field of endeavor teaches an optical element that is comprised of coupling region (11, Figures 3 and 4) and an expansion region (12) that each comprises a volume hologram implicitly includes diffraction grating structure that may be embedded in the waveguide or light guide body, (please see paragraph [0057]).
It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Erler et al to modify the coupling region and emission region to have both the diffraction gratings being embedded inside the light guide body as an alternative design to one skilled in the art for the image display. It is common knowledge that the diffraction grating whether being embedded in the waveguide or being disposed on the waveguide would function the same.
Claim 1 has been amended to include the phrase “diffraction by a diffraction structure of the coupling region and travels in the light guide body by repeating total reflection”.
Yoshikaie teaches light flux incident on the incident surface of the light guide body is changed in traveling direction by diffraction by a diffraction structure (41, Figure 4) of the coupling region and travels in the light guide body by repeating total reflection.
Claim 1 has been amended to include the phrase “the light flux … emitted from the emission surface and forming an expanded exit pupil after replicated in a first direction corresponding to a horizontal direction of the image visually recognized by the observer due to diffraction by transmitting a diffraction structure of the expansion region a second direction correspond to a vertical direction of the image or both the directions”.
Yoshikaie teaches that the light flux changed in the traveling direction is emitted from the emission surface (42, Figures 4 and 8A) and forming an expanded exit pupil, (please see paragraph [0135]). Yoshikaie does not teach explicitly that the diffraction from the expansion region is by transmitting diffraction structure. Erler et al teaches that the expansion region comprises a transmission volume hologram (12, Figures 3 and 4) that is embedded in the light guide body (10) wherein the expansion of the light is achieved by diffraction of light by transmitting thought the transmission volume hologram of the expansion region in a first direction and the light flux is further propagated to emission region (13) and the light flux is further expanded in a second direction.
Claim 1 has been amended to include the phrase “the diffraction structure of the expansion region exists inside the light guide body … and is arranged such that the distance from the diffraction structure to a front surface and a back surface of the light guide body is shorter on one side than on the other”.
Erler et al teaches that the volume hologram of the expansion region (12, Figures 3) is arranged such that the distance from the diffraction structure or the volume hologram to a front surface and a back surface of the light guide body (10) is shorter on one side than on the other.
With regard to amended claim 3, Yoshikaie teaches that the optical system has two expansion regions, wherein one of the expansion regions expands 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 and 17, as shown in Figure 4 and 8A, Yoshikaie teaches that the expansion region comprises volume holographic diffraction grating configured to diffract and replicate the light flux, (please see paragraph [0073]).
With regard to claims 8 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 normal direction of the emission surface of the light guide body, (please see Figure 4).
With regard to claim 11, Yoshikaie teaches that the optical system has two expansion regions, wherein one of the expansion regions expands 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 12, the relational expression is implicitly met by the expansion region.
With regard to amended claim 13, as shown in Figure 4 and 8A, Yoshikaie teaches that the expansion region comprises volume holographic diffraction grating configured to diffract and replicate the light flux, (please see paragraph [0073]).
With regard to claim 16, 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 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, Horikawa and Erler et al 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 Horikawa and Erler 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 June 8, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The newly amended claims have been fully considered and they are rejected for the reasons set forth above.
Applicant’s arguments are mainly drawn to the newly amended features that have been fully addressed in the reasons for rejection stated above.
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