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
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I invention, including claims 4-7, in the reply filed on 12/12/2025 is acknowledged.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 4-7 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.
The specific limitation “setting a target value of emission light of the optical element” as presented in claim 4 appears to be unclear. As shown in figure 3 and paragraph 0021 of the instant application, the optical element 3 appears to correspond to the first reflecting mirror 31, the second reflecting mirror 32, the translucent dust cover 33, and the windshield WS. The examiner is not sure how a target value of emission light of the optical element can be set. Appropriate correction is required.
The specific limitation “a flatness ratio of a polarization component of polarized light” as presented in claim 7 appears to be unclear. The examiner is not what is being referred to as a flatness ratio of a polarization component of polarized light. Appropriate correction is required.
Being dependent on claim 4, claims 5-7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
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 4-5 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 (The concave mirror 5 is a mirror for enlarging the display image formed by the display light reflected by the plane mirror 4. The concave mirror 5 reflects the display light reflected by the plane mirror 4 toward the opening 2a of the housing 2; see at least page 2, the last paragraph); and
a second step of setting a target value of emission light of the optical element (the optical element (4, 5, 8) and a phase element (6-7) are set up as shown in figure 16) and calculating a polarizing characteristic of each of the plurality of phase difference plates and the inclination serving as an approximate solution of the target value (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, 6th and 7th paragraphs).
The limitations “the inclination serving as an approximate solution of the target value” are regarded as intended use limitations. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 5, Junya et al. (figures 2-5 and 16) discloses wherein in the first step, the propagation characteristic is derived from a measured value of a quantitative evaluation value of the optical element without the phase element (The concave mirror 5 is a mirror for enlarging the display image formed by the display light reflected by the plane mirror 4. The concave mirror 5 reflects the display light reflected by the plane mirror 4 toward the opening 2a of the housing 2; see at least page 2, the last paragraph), and in the second step, the approximate solution is searched by a genetic algorithm (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, 6th and 7th 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 of the optical element. 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 of the optical element (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 a polarization component of polarized light at at least three wavelengths of the emission light of the optical element. Koide (figure 7) teaches wherein an evaluation function of the genetic algorithm evaluates a flatness ratio of a polarization component of polarized light at at least three wavelengths of the emission light of the optical element (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.
Conclusion
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