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 .
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 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.
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 of this title, 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, 9-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nambara (JP2019184920A) in view of Poulad (US 2020/0278544) and Fiess (DE102016206137A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nambara teaches an image display device (Fig. 1-14, Pages 1-8 of English translation of JP2019184920A) comprising:
a display (the display corresponding to 10/12 in Fig. 2 and 4-5) that emits a light flux that forms an image visually recognized by an observer (Fig.1) as a virtual image (the virtual image VRI in Fig. 1);
a light guide body (the waveguide 30 in Fig. 2-4 and 8) that has a diffraction structure (the structure corresponding to 33/34/35/36/37/38/234/236/238 in Fig. 3-4, Fig. 6-7 and Fig. 12) and guides the light flux to a light-transmitting member (the windshield 3 in Fig. 1) while changing a traveling direction (Fig. 3-4 and 6-7) with the diffraction structure (the structure corresponding to 33/34/35/36/37/38 in Fig. 3-4 and 6-7);
a controller (50 in Fig. 4 and Fig. 9) that controls the image displayed by the display (Fig. 4 and Fig. 9); and
wherein the light guide body (the waveguide 30 in Fig. 3-4, Fig. 6-8, Fig. 12) includes an incident surface (the incident surface of 33 in Fig. 3-4) on which the light flux from the display (the display corresponding to 10/12 in Fig. 2 and 4-5) is incident and an emission surface (the emitting surface of 37 in Fig. 3-4) from which the light flux is emitted from the light guide body (the waveguide 30 in Fig. 3-4, Fig. 6-8, Fig. 12), and
wherein the light flux incident on the incident surface (the incident surface of 33 in Fig. 3-4) of the light guide body is changed in a traveling direction by the diffraction structure (the structure corresponding to 33/34/35/36/37/38/234/236/238 in Fig. 3-4, Fig. 6-7 and Fig. 12) in the light guide body, and is emitted from the emission surface (the emitting surface of 37 in Fig. 3-4) so as to expand a visual field area by being replicated in a horizontal direction and a vertical direction of the virtual image visually recognized by the observer (Fig. 3-4, Fig. 8).
Nambara teaches that the light guide body (the waveguide 30 in Fig. 3-4, Fig. 6-8, Fig. 12) having the diffraction structure (the structure corresponding to 33/34/35/36/37/38/234/236/238 in Fig. 3-4, Fig. 6-7 and Fig. 12). Nambara does not teach that a sensor that receives a part of the light flux transmitted through the light guide body and detects a physical quantity of light used to obtain a wavelength of the light flux, wherein the controller controls a position and a shape of the image displayed by the display based on the physical quantity detected by the sensor.
Poulad teaches that (Fig. 1, [0018-0022]) a sensor (104 in Fig. 1, [0019]) that receives a part of the light flux (the light flux from 110 in Fig. 1) transmitted through a light guide body (the body corresponding to 116 in Fig. 1) .
Fiess teaches that (Fig. 1, Pages 4-8 of English translation of DE102016206137A1) a sensor (the wavelength sensor 102 in Fig. 1, Page 4, Last two paragraphs, page 5, first fourth paragraphs) that receives a part of the light flux transmitted from a diffraction structure (118 in Fig. 1) and detects a physical quantity of light used to obtain a wavelength of the light flux (Page 4, last paragraph, page 5, first paragraph), wherein the controller controls a position and a shape of the image displayed by the display based on the physical quantity detected by the sensor (Page 5, Paragraph 1 to Page 6, Paragraph 4).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to the artisan of ordinary skill to employ the above elements as taught by Poulad and Fiess for the system of Nambara such that in the system of Nambara, a sensor that receives a part of the light flux transmitted through the light guide body of the system of Nambara and detects a physical quantity of light used to obtain a wavelength of the light flux, wherein the controller controls a position and a shape of the image displayed by the display based on the physical quantity detected by the sensor. The motivation is to provide a compact architectural solution in AR/VR systems (Paulad, [0012]), and it helps that the offset of the viewed image can be offset by offsetting the image on the imager, and the image is projected at the intended projection position (Fiess, Page 2, Paragraph 4-5).
Regarding claims 9-10, Nambara also teaches the following elements:
(Claim 9) wherein the light guide body (the waveguide 30 in Fig. 3-4, Fig. 6-8, Fig. 12) includes a coupling region (the region corresponding to 33 in Fig. 3-4) that changes a traveling direction of a light flux incident on the incident surface (the incident surface of 33 in Fig. 3-4), a first expansion region (the region corresponding to 35 in Fig. 3-4) that replicates the light flux changed in the traveling direction in the coupling region (the region corresponding to 33 in Fig. 3-4) in a first direction (the vertical direction in Fig. 3) in the light guide body (the waveguide 30 in Fig. 2-4 and 8), and a second expansion region (the region corresponding to 37 in Fig. 3-4) that replicates the light flux reciprocated in the first expansion region (the region corresponding to 35 in Fig. 3-4) in a second direction (the horizontal direction in Fig. 3) intersecting the first direction (the vertical direction in Fig. 3) in the light guide body (the waveguide 30 in Fig. 2-4 and 8), wherein the coupling region (the region corresponding to 33 in Fig. 3-4), the first expansion region (the region corresponding to 35 in Fig. 3-4), and the second expansion region (the region corresponding to 37 in Fig. 3-4) have the diffraction structures (the structure corresponding to 33/34/35/36/37/38/234/236/238 in Fig. 3-4, Fig. 6-7 and Fig. 12), and the diffraction structures have respective different diffraction powers and diffraction angles (Fig. 3-4, Fig. 6-7 and Fig. 12, Pages 4-5, Pages 8-9), and wherein the light flux replicated in the second expansion region (the region corresponding to 37 in Fig. 3-4) is emitted from the emission surface (the emitting surface of 37 in Fig. 3-4).
(Claim 10) at least one of the coupling region, the first expansion region, and the second expansion region includes a volume hologram (Fig. 12, Page 8, Paragraph 6-9).
Regarding claim 12, Nambara does not teach the following elements.
Fiess teaches the following elements:
(Claim 12) the controller controls the position and the shape of the image so as to reduce distortion of the image (Page 5, Paragraph 1 to Page 6, Paragraph 4) due to the light flux emitted from the diffraction structure (118 in Fig. 1).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to the artisan of ordinary skill to employ the above elements as taught by Fiess for the system of Nambara in view of Poulad and Fiess such that in the system of Nambara in view of Poulad and Fiess,
(Claim 12) the controller controls the position and the shape of the image so as to reduce distortion of the image due to the light flux emitted from the light guide body.
The motivation is that the offset of the viewed image can be offset by offsetting the image on the imager, and the image is projected at the intended projection position (Fiess, Page 2, Paragraph 4-5).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nambara in view of Poulad and Fiess as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu (US 2023/0341597).
Regarding claim 11, Nambara teaches the coupling region (the region corresponding to 33 in Fig. 3-4), the first expansion region (the region corresponding to 35 in Fig. 3-4), and the second expansion region (the region corresponding to 37 in Fig. 3-4) have the diffraction structures (the structure corresponding to 33/34/35/36/37/38/234/236/238 in Fig. 3-4, Fig. 6-7 and Fig. 12), and the diffraction structures have respective different size and light guiding directions (Fig. 3-4, Fig. 6-7 and Fig. 12, Pages 4-5, Pages 8-9). Nambara does not explicitly point out that the coupling region, the first expansion region, and the second expansion region have different magnitudes of wave number vectors of the respective diffraction structures.
Liu teaches the following elements (Fig. 14A-14D, [0006-0009, 0190, 0215-0237]):
(Claim 11) an coupling region (ICG in Fig. 14A), the first expansion region (OPE in Fig. 14A), and the second expansion region (EPE in Fig. 14A) have different magnitudes of wave number vectors of the respective diffraction structures (Fig. 14A-14B, [0190, 0229, 0231-0232]).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to the artisan of ordinary skill to employ the above elements as taught by Liu for the system of Nambara in view of Poulad and Fiess such that in the system of Nambara in view of Poulad and Fiess,
(Claim 11) the coupling region, the first expansion region, and the second expansion region have different magnitudes of wave number vectors of the respective diffraction structures..
The motivation is to obtain the desired diffractive efficiency of the diffraction structures/grating and other factors for the lightguide/waveguide (Liu, [0217]).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nambara in view of Poulad and Fiess as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fattal (US 2018/0292647).
Regarding claim 13, Nambara teaches a head-up display system (Fig. 1-14) comprising: the image display device ((Fig. 1-14); and the light-transmitting member (the windshield 3 in Fig. 1) that reflects the light flux (Fig. 1) emitted from the light guide body (the waveguide 30 in Fig. 2-4 and 8), wherein the head-up display system displays the virtual image so as to be superimposed on a real view visually recognizable through the light-transmitting member (Fig. 1). Nambara teaches the light guide body (the waveguide 30 in Fig. 2-4 and 8) has the diffraction structure (the structure corresponding to 33/34/35/36/37/38/234/236/238 in Fig. 3-4, Fig. 6-7 and Fig. 12), Nambara does not explicitly point out that a diffraction pitch of the diffraction structure is not constant because the light-transmitting member has a non-planar shape and reflects the light flux emitted from the light guide body to be incident on the visual field area.
Fattal teaches the following elements (Fig. 1-5, Abs, [0023, 0025-0026, 0028, 0039-0045, 0052-0057, 0066]):
(Claim 13) a diffraction pitch of the diffraction structure (Fig. 3A-3B) is not constant (Fig. 3A-3B, [0052]) because the light-transmitting member has a non-planar shape and reflects the light flux emitted from the light guide body to be incident on the visual field area (Fig. 2-5, [0023, 0025-0026, 0028, 0039-0045, 0052-0057, 0066]).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to the artisan of ordinary skill to employ the above elements as taught by Fattal for the system of Nambara in view of Poulad and Fiess such that in the system of Nambara in view of Poulad and Fiess,
(Claim 13) a diffraction pitch of the diffraction structure is not constant because the light-transmitting member has a non-planar shape and reflects the light flux emitted from the light guide body to be incident on the visual field area.
The motivation is to provide the different views by the 3D head-up display system to represent different perspective views of a 3D image (Fattal, Abs).
Regarding claim 14, Nambara also teaches the following elements:
(Claim 14) the light-transmitting member (the windshield 3 in Fig. 1) is a windshield of a moving body (Fig. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-8 and 15-20 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:
None of the prior art of record discloses or suggests all the combination of an image display device as set forth in claims 2-8 and 15-20.
Regarding claims 2-8 and 15-20, none of the prior art discloses or suggests an image display device recited in claim 1, wherein “the sensor is located at a position where the light flux travels through the light guide body without changing a traveling direction in the diffraction structure” in combination with the other required elements of the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAN LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-0383. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm EST M-F.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached on 571-272-9791. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Shan Liu/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871