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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 05/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that Junya does not disclose the limitation as presented in claim 4. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Junya et al. (figures 2-5 and 16) discloses a method for designing a head-up display as claimed including a first step of setting a propagation characteristic of light of the optical element on the optical path of the display light without the phase element, the propagation characteristic comprising at least one of an amplitude ratio angle and a phase difference (The display 3 is a well-known liquid crystal display that emits linearly polarized display light by allowing light from the backlight to pass through a liquid crystal panel, a color filter, and a polarizing filter. FIG. 3 is a diagram illustrating a Poincare sphere that displays the polarization states PC1, PC2, and PC3 in the HUD device 1 of the first embodiment. The polarization state PC1 is a polarization state before display light enters the low phase difference plate 6; see at least page 2, the last two paragraphs and page 3, 6th paragraph. Any type of light or electromagnetic polarization (linear, circular, elliptical, or even unpolarized) can be fully described using the four Stokes Parameters); and a second step of: setting a target value of a polarization state of emission light of the optical element a predetermined stage on the optical path of the display light (the optical element (4, 5, 8) and a phase element (6-7) are set up as shown in figure 16. As shown in FIG. 3, the polarization state PC1 is linearly polarized light having an azimuth angle θp of 135 degrees. The polarization state PC2 is elliptically polarized light. The polarization state PC3 is linearly polarized light having an azimuth angle θp of 165 degrees; see at least page 3, 7th paragraph); and calculating a polarizing characteristic and inclination of each of the plurality of phase difference plates by simulating, using the propagation characteristics of light of the optical element determined in the first step, propagation of the display light through a phase element having candidate parameters and the optical element with varying the candidate parameters including polarization characteristics and inclination by a genetic algorithm, to find an approximate solution of the candidate parameters that optimizes the polarization state of the emission light at the predetermined stage toward the target value (FIG. 4 is a Poincare sphere that displays the polarization states PC1, PC2, and PC3 when the fast axis FA1 of the low retardation plate 6 and the fast axis FA2 of the low retardation plate 7 are shifted by 5 degrees in the HUD device 1 of the first embodiment. As shown in FIG. 4, the polarization state PC1 is linearly polarized light having an azimuth angle θp of 135 degrees. The polarization state PC2 is elliptically polarized light. The polarization state PC3 is linearly polarized light having an azimuth angle θp of 158 degrees. That is, the deviation of the azimuth angle θp due to the deviation of the fast axis FA1 and the fast axis FA2 by 5 degrees is 165-158 = 7 degrees; see at least page 3, 8th and 9th paragraphs). Therefore, the device would function properly as the examiner stated. The claim language therefore does not patentably distinguish over the applied reference[s], and the previous rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 4 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Junya et al. (WO 2017/110185).
Regarding claim 4, Junya et al. (figures 2-5 and 16) discloses a method for designing a head-up display that allows display light emitted from a display element to be visually recognized via an optical element (2, 4, 5, 8) and a phase element (6-7), the phase element including a plurality of phase difference plates having different polarization characteristics (The low retardation plates 6 and 7 are members that cause a phase difference between a polarized light component parallel to the fast axis and a polarized light component perpendicular to the fast axis; see at least page 3, first paragraph), and disposed on an optical path of the display light at a predetermined inclination with respect to a principal ray of the display light (3; figure 16), the method for designing a head-up display comprising:
a first step of setting a propagation characteristic of light of the optical element on the optical path of the display light without the phase element, the propagation characteristic comprising at least one of an amplitude ratio angle and a phase difference (The display 3 is a well-known liquid crystal display that emits linearly polarized display light by allowing light from the backlight to pass through a liquid crystal panel, a color filter, and a polarizing filter. FIG. 3 is a diagram illustrating a Poincare sphere that displays the polarization states PC1, PC2, and PC3 in the HUD device 1 of the first embodiment. The polarization state PC1 is a polarization state before display light enters the low phase difference plate 6; see at least page 2, the last two paragraphs and page 3, 6th paragraph. Any type of light or electromagnetic polarization (linear, circular, elliptical, or even unpolarized) can be fully described using the four Stokes Parameters); and
a second step of:
setting a target value of a polarization state of emission light of the optical element a predetermined stage on the optical path of the display light (the optical element (4, 5, 8) and a phase element (6-7) are set up as shown in figure 16. As shown in FIG. 3, the polarization state PC1 is linearly polarized light having an azimuth angle θp of 135 degrees. The polarization state PC2 is elliptically polarized light. The polarization state PC3 is linearly polarized light having an azimuth angle θp of 165 degrees; see at least page 3, 7th paragraph); and
calculating a polarizing characteristic and inclination of each of the plurality of phase difference plates by simulating, using the propagation characteristics of light of the optical element determined in the first step, propagation of the display light through a phase element having candidate parameters and the optical element with varying the candidate parameters including polarization characteristics and inclination by a genetic algorithm, to find an approximate solution of the candidate parameters that optimizes the polarization state of the emission light at the predetermined stage toward the target value (FIG. 4 is a Poincare sphere that displays the polarization states PC1, PC2, and PC3 when the fast axis FA1 of the low retardation plate 6 and the fast axis FA2 of the low retardation plate 7 are shifted by 5 degrees in the HUD device 1 of the first embodiment. As shown in FIG. 4, the polarization state PC1 is linearly polarized light having an azimuth angle θp of 135 degrees. The polarization state PC2 is elliptically polarized light. The polarization state PC3 is linearly polarized light having an azimuth angle θp of 158 degrees. That is, the deviation of the azimuth angle θp due to the deviation of the fast axis FA1 and the fast axis FA2 by 5 degrees is 165-158 = 7 degrees; see at least page 3, 8th and 9th paragraphs).
Regarding claim 8, Junya et al. (figures 2-5 and 16) discloses wherein
the optical element comprises a plurality of optical elements disposed on the optical path (6 and 7),
the predetermined stage is a stage at a selected one of the plurality of optical elements (PC1-PC3; figures 3-4), and
the target value is set based on a polarization state of emission light at the selected stage, the polarization state reflecting a polarization influence of one or more optical elements disposed on the optical path before the selected stage (As shown in FIG. 4, the polarization state PC1 is linearly polarized light having an azimuth angle θp of 135 degrees. The polarization state PC2 is elliptically polarized light. The polarization state PC3 is linearly polarized light having an azimuth angle θp of 158 degrees. That is, the deviation of the azimuth angle θp due to the deviation of the fast axis FA1 and the fast axis FA2 by 5 degrees is 165-158 = 7 degrees; see at least page 3, the last four paragraphs).
Regarding claim 9, Junya et al. (figures 2-5 and 16) discloses wherein
the optical element comprises a plurality of optical elements disposed on the optical path (6 and 7),
the plurality of phase difference plates corresponds respectively to the plurality of optical elements (PC1-PC3; figures 3-4), and
each of the plurality of phase difference plates is designed to cancel a polarization influence caused by a corresponding one of the plurality of optical elements (the polarization state PC1 is linearly polarized light having an azimuth angle θp of 135 degrees. The polarization state PC2 is elliptically polarized light. The polarization state PC3 is linearly polarized light having an azimuth angle θp of 165 degrees; see at least page 3, the last six paragraphs).
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 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 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Junya et al. (WO 2017/110185) in view of Koide (US 2004/0021833).
Regarding claim 6, Junya et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 5 above. However, Junya et al. is silent regarding wherein an evaluation function of the genetic algorithm evaluates intensity of S-polarized light or P-polarized light at at least three wavelengths of the emission light at the predetermined stage. Koide (figure 7) teaches wherein an evaluation function of the genetic algorithm evaluates intensity of S-polarized light or P-polarized light at at least three wavelengths of the emission light at the predetermined stage (110-130; RGB; see at least paragraphs 0126-0129). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as taught by Koide in order to achieve an image display apparatus capable of effectively capturing light emitted from an organic EL element and brightening an image without increasing the size and cost of a projection optical system.
Regarding claim 7, Junya et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 5 above. However, Junya et al. is silent regarding wherein an evaluation function of the genetic algorithm evaluates a flatness ratio of the emission light of the optical element relative to circular polarization component of polarized light at least three wavelengths. Koide (figure 7) teaches wherein an evaluation function of the genetic algorithm evaluates a flatness ratio of the emission light of the optical element relative to circular polarization component of polarized light at least three wavelengths (110-130; RGB; see at least paragraphs 0126-0129). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as taught by Koide in order to achieve an image display apparatus capable of effectively capturing light emitted from an organic EL element and brightening an image without increasing the size and cost of a projection optical system.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Junya et al. (WO 2017/110185) in view of Kikuchi et al. (US 6,542,876).
Regarding claim 10, Junya et al. discloses providing an initial population of sets of candidate parameters; evaluating each set of candidate parameters using an evaluation function based on the polarization state of the emission light at the predetermined stage obtained by the simulation (PC1-PC3). However, Junya et al. is silent regarding the algorithm. Kikuchi et al. teaches wherein the genetic algorithm comprises:
providing an initial population of sets of candidate parameters (S1; figure 2);
evaluating each set of candidate parameters (S2-S3);
selecting candidate parameters based on the evaluation (S4); and
generating a next generation of candidate parameters by applying crossover and mutation to the selected candidate parameters (S5),
wherein the providing, evaluating, selecting, and generating steps are repeated over a plurality of generations (S9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as taught by Kikuchi et al. in order to achieve a method for ICE operating the genetic algorithm for extracting the most suitable combination from candidates of complex combination.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1428. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 8:00 AM -6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Carruth, can be reached at 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.
/LAUREN NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights