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
This Office Action is in response to an amendment received 10/22/2025 in which Applicant lists claims 2-6 as being original, and claim 1 as being currently amended. It is interpreted by the examiner that claims 1-6 are pending.
If applicant is aware of any relevant prior art, or other co-pending application not already of record, they are reminded of their duty under 37 CFR 1.56 to disclose the same.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 4-10 of the remarks, filed 10/22/2025, with respect to the rejections of claim 1 with respect to Sakai (US 2021/0232028 A1, of record) and Andoh et al. (US 2022/0066210 A1, of record) not disclosing that the display panel and the holographic optical element are arranged in parallel with each other, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Sakai, Andoh and Onda et al. (US 2020/0103652 A1).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0232028 A1, of record (hereafter Sakai) in view of Andoh et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0066210 A1, of record (hereafter Andoh) and Onda et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0103652 A1 (hereafter Onda).
Regarding claim 1, Sakai discloses a display device (see at least the title, abstract, element 10) comprising:
an illumination device which emits illumination light (see at least element 11, para. [0029]);
a display panel which modulates the illumination light and emits image light (see at least element 11, para. [0029]);
an optical element which reflects the image light emitted from the display panel (see at least element 12, including elements 121, 122 and 132; and/or element 12B, including elements 121B, 121C, 132B; and/or element 12C-1 and 12C-2, including elements 141, 142; and/or element 12D-1 and 12D-2, including elements 121D, 122D, 121C/131D/141D, 122D/131D/142D); and
a concave mirror which reflects the image light reflected by the optical element (see at least element 131, 131B, 131C or 131D), wherein
when the image light reflected by the concave mirror enters a projection member, a virtual image is projected (see at least elements 3, IM1, IM2, para. [0026]), and
the optical element is located between the display panel and the concave mirror in an optical path where the illumination light from the illumination device to the projection member (see at least figures 3, 5, 6 or 10).
Sakai does not disclose that the optical element is a holographic optical element wherein the holographic optical element reflects light incident at a specific angle of incidence on a Bragg reflection surface and transmits the light incident at an angle of incidence different from the specific angle of incidence.
However, Andoh is also related to a virtual image display device (see at least the title and abstract), including a holographic optical element which reflects image light emitted from a display panel (see at least elements 20 and 31, para. [0034]), wherein the image light enters a projection member projecting a virtual image (see at least element 3, para. [0023]), and the holographic optical element reflects light incident at a specific angle of incidence on a Bragg reflection surface and transmits the light incident at an angle of incidence different from the specific angle of incidence (see at least elements 31, 32, θi and θo, para. [0037]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display device of Sakai to include the teachings of Andoh so that the optical element is a holographic optical element wherein the holographic optical element reflects light incident at a specific angle of incidence on a Bragg reflection surface and transmits the light incident at an angle of incidence different from the specific angle of incidence, for the purpose of using a known type of reflective element (e.g. Bragg reflection hologram) to allow the location of the display panel and projection optics in desired locations which may decrease a height requirement of the display device (see at least paras. [0018]-[0020] of Andoh) and/or to project the virtual image(s) at desired locations on the projection member for viewing by a user.
Sakai further does not specifically disclose that the display panel and the holographic optical element are arranged in parallel with each other.
However, Onda is also related to a virtual image display device (see at least the title and abstract), wherein a display panel and a holographic optical element are arranged in parallel with each other (see at least figures 7-8, display panel 320 and HOE element 432, 432c, 432a, paras. [0069]-[0077]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display device of Sakai in view of Andoh to include the further teachings of Onda so that the display panel and the holographic optical element are arranged in parallel with each other, for the purpose of having a desired layout of the display, holographic diffraction elements and reflective elements of the apparatus, while also achieving diffraction of the image light in a predetermined direction at a predetermined angle.
Regarding claim 2, Sakai further discloses that the display panel produces first image light from a first area of the display and second image light from a second area of the display (see at least elements 11, L1, L2, IM1, IM2, DA1, DA2, 111, paras. [0026]-[0030] of Sakai). Sakai additionally teaches that the first image light from the first area of the display and the second image light from the second area of the display may be reflected onto different portions of the projection member to form first and second virtual images at different positions (see at least figures 1-3, paras. [0027], [0032]-[0033], [0039]-[0041] of Sakai). Andoh additionally teaches that image light is reflected off different portions of the holographic optical element at emission angles which are the same (see at least figures 2, 3, elements 31, 32 and θo, para. [0037] of Andoh).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display device of Sakai, Andoh and Onda to include the further teachings of Sakai and Andoh so that an angle made between a plane of the holographic optical element and the Bragg reflection surface of first image light emitted from a first area of the display panel is a first angle,
an angle made between the plane of the holographic optical element and the Bragg reflection surface of second image light emitted from a second area of the display panel is a second angle,
an angle made between the plane of the holographic optical element and the Bragg reflection surface of third image light emitted from a third area of the display panel is a third angle,
the first area, the second area and the third area of the display panel correspond to an upper area, a central area and a lower area of the virtual image, respectively, and
the first angle, the second angle and the third angle are equal to each other, for the purpose of using the known type of reflective element (e.g. Bragg reflection hologram of Andoh) to project the virtual image(s) at desired locations on the projection member while having desired focal distances and other desired display characteristics (see at least figures 1-3, paras. [0027], [0032]-[0033], [0039]-[0043] of Sakai).
Regarding claim 3, Sakai further discloses that the display panel produces first image light from a first area of the display and second image light from a second area of the display (see at least elements 11, L1, L2, IM1, IM2, DA1, DA2, 111, paras. [0026]-[0030] of Sakai). Sakai additionally teaches that the first image light from the first area of the display and the second image light from the second area of the display may be reflected onto different portions of the projection member to form first and second virtual images at different positions (see at least figures 1-3, paras. [0027], [0032]-[0033], [0039]-[0041] of Sakai).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display device of Sakai, Andoh and Onda to include the further teachings of Sakai so that an angle made between a plane of the holographic optical element and the Bragg reflection surface of first image light emitted from a first area of the display panel is a first angle,
an angle made between the plane of the holographic optical element and the Bragg reflection surface of second image light emitted from a second area of the display panel is a second angle,
an angle made between the plane of the holographic optical element and the Bragg reflection surface of third image light emitted from a third area of the display panel is a third angle,
the first area, the second area and the third area of the display panel correspond to an upper area, a central area and a lower area of the virtual image, respectively, and
the first angle, the second angle and the third angle are larger in angle in this order, for the purpose of using the known type of reflective element (e.g. Bragg reflection hologram of Andoh) to project the virtual image(s) at desired locations on the projection member for viewing by a user (see at least figures 1-3, paras. [0027], [0032]-[0033], [0039]-[0041] of Sakai).
Regarding claim 4, Sakai in view of Andoh and Onda discloses that the projection member is a windshield provided in a vehicle (see at least element 3, para. [0026] of Sakai), the image light reflected by the concave mirror enters the windshield, and as the image light is projected, the virtual image is visually recognized by a user through the windshield (see at least figure 9, elements 3, IM1, IM2 and E, paras. [0058]-[0066] of Sakai).
Regarding claim 5, Sakai in view of Andoh and Onda discloses that the display device according to claim 4, which is provided between the windshield and the user (see at least figure 9 of Sakai).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0232028 A1, of record (hereafter Sakai) in view of Andoh et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0066210 A1, of record (hereafter Andoh) and Onda et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0103652 A1 (hereafter Onda) as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of Kato et al., U.S. Patent Number 5,187,597, of record (hereafter Kato).
Regarding claim 6, Sakai in view of Andoh and Onda does not specifically that the windshield is provided between the display device and the user.
However, Kato is related to Sakai by also being drawn to a display device (see at least the title and abstract of Kato), wherein an image from a display panel may be reflected off a projection member and viewed by a user (see at least figure 1, elements 1, 2, 4 and 6 of Kato), wherein the display panel may be provided between the projection member and the user (see at least figure 1, elements 1, 2, 4 and 6 of Kato), or the projection member may be provided between the display panel and the user (see at least figures 6 or 10, elements 1, 2, 4 and 6 of Kato).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display device of Sakai in view of Andoh to include the teachings of Kato so that the windshield is provided between the display device and the user, for the purpose of using available space in a vehicle to place the display device in a desired position while being able to project image(s) to a user via the windshield.
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 DEREK S. CHAPEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8042. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6pm.
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.
/Derek S. Chapel/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 10/29/2025
Derek S. CHAPEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872