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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species B, claims 1, 4-7, 9 and 11-16 in the reply filed on 04/21/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Species A and B have many of the same features and/or similar features and thus do not appear to be mutually exclusive. This is not found persuasive because:
Species A, drawn to a virtual display system have a frustrum prism with reflective surfaces or refractive surfaces with a single motor actuator assembly to rotate the frustrum prism 110 according to figs.1-5; and
Species B, drawn to a virtual display system having a plurality of independently controlled plates comprising a plurality of reflective surfaces and a plurality of actuator assemblies configured to adjust locations and orientations of the plurality of plates independently according to fig.6.
Therefore, the species A and B are independent or distinct because they are mutually exclusive embodiments to each other. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
In addition, these two Species require two different searching strategies/queries, and these two Species require two different searching methods.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 2-3, 8 and 17-21 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 04/21/2026.
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, 4-7, 9 and 11-16 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim limitations, “a virtual display system comprising:
at least one object comprising at least one reflective surfaces surface or a plurality of refractive surfaces; and
a projector configured to generate a light beam including a plurality of sub-holograms respectively for a plurality of viewers, and direct the light beam at the at least one object,
wherein the at least one object is configured to at least one of i) direct, via the at least one reflective surface or the plurality of refractive surfaces, the plurality of sub-holograms at eves of respectively the plurality of viewers, and ii) split the light beam into a plurality of sub-light beams via the at least one reflective surface or the plurality of refractive surfaces and direct the plurality of sub-light beam at eyes respectively of the plurality of viewers” are considered to be indefinite. The claim limitations refer to both Species A and Species B. However, Species B does not have a plurality of refractive surfaces. Also, at least one object can mean one object with one reflective surface, which is unable to direct the plurality of sub-holograms at eyes of the plurality of viewers. Therefore, it is indefinite.
For the purpose of examination, the examiner will interpret the above limitation as - - “a virtual display system comprising:
a plurality of plates comprising a plurality of reflective surfaces
a projector configured to generate a light beam including a plurality of sub-holograms respectively for a plurality of viewers, and direct the light beam at the plurality of plates,
wherein the plurality of plates are configured to at least one of i) direct, via the plurality of reflective surfaces plurality of reflective surfaces
Also, dependent Claims 4-7, 9 and 11-16 are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
Claim Objections
Claims 5-7 and 11 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5, the claim limitation “the at least one object is steerable” should be “the plurality of plates are steerable” because of 112(b) rejection above;
Claim 6, the claim limitations “the at least one reflective surface or the plurality of refractive surfaces are movable to direct the plurality of sub-light beams at the plurality of viewers to display a plurality of images to the plurality of viewers concurrently” should be “the plurality of reflective surfaces
Claim 7, the claim limitation “the least one object comprises four reflective surfaces that each reflect a respective one of the plurality of sub-holograms to a respective one of the plurality of viewers” should be “the plurality of plates comprises four reflective surfaces that each reflect a respective one of the plurality of sub-holograms to a respective one of the plurality of viewers” because of 112(b) rejection above; and
Claim 11, the claim limitations “the at least one object comprises a plurality of plates comprising a plurality of reflective surfaces including the at least one reflective surface; the projector is configured to direct the light beam at the plurality of plates; and
the plurality of plates are configured to split the light beam into the plurality of sub-light beams via the plurality of reflective surfaces and direct the plurality of sub-light beams, including respectively the plurality of sub-holograms, at eyes of the plurality of viewers” should be “.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 7, 9, 11 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chang US 20230406099.
1. Chang discloses a virtual display system, in at least figs.1-9, comprising:
a plurality of plates (58 and 60 in fig.2, or 28A, 28B, 30A and 30B in fig.9) comprising a plurality of reflective surfaces (see figs.2 and 9); and
a projector (16) configured to generate a light beam including a plurality of sub-holograms (62 and 70, para.39) respectively for a plurality of viewers (14 or 114-414), and direct the light beam at the plurality of plates (see figs.2 and 9),
wherein the plurality of plates are configured to at least one of i) direct, via the plurality of reflective surfaces, the plurality of sub-holograms at eyes of the plurality of viewers, and ii) split the light beam into a plurality of sub-light beams via the plurality of reflective surfaces and direct the plurality of sub-light beam at eyes of the plurality of viewers (see figs.2 and 9).
4. (Chang discloses further comprising a control module (32) configured to control a spatial light modulator (para.39) of the projector to encode each of the plurality of sub-holograms with a respective set of eye boxes for each of the plurality of viewers (para.39 and figs.2 and 9).
7. Chang discloses the plurality of plates comprises four reflective surfaces (see fig.9) that each reflect a respective one of the plurality of sub-holograms to a respective one of the plurality of viewers (see fig.9).
9. Chang discloses a control module (32), wherein the projector comprises a spatial light modulator (para.39) and the control module is configured control the spatial light modulator (para.39 and figs.2 and 9) to at least one of:
implement a lens function to independently establish a virtual image distance for each of the plurality of viewers; and encode a focal length for each of the plurality of viewers into a respective one of the plurality of sub-holograms for that viewer per frame (para.39 and 57-59 and figs.2 and 9).
11. Chang discloses the projector is configured to direct the light beam at the plurality of plates (see figs.2 and 9); and the plurality of plates are configured to split the light beam into the plurality of sub-light beams via the plurality of reflective surfaces and direct the plurality of sub-light beams, including respectively the plurality of sub-holograms (para.39), at eyes of the plurality of viewers (see figs.2 and 9).
14. (Chang discloses further comprising a control module (32) configured to control a spatial light modulator (para.39) of the projector to encode each of the plurality of sub-holograms with a respective set of eye boxes for each of the plurality of viewers (para.39 and figs.2 and 9).
15. Chang discloses a control module (32), wherein the projector comprises a spatial light modulator (para.39) and the control module is configured control the spatial light modulator (para.39 and figs.2 and 9) to at least one of:
implement a lens function to independently establish a virtual image distance for each of the plurality of viewers; and encode a focal length for each of the plurality of viewers into a respective one of the plurality of sub-holograms for that viewer per frame (para.39 and 57-59 and figs.2 and 9).
16. (Original) Chang discloses a vehicle assembly (abstract), in at least figs.1-9, comprising: the virtual display system of claim 11 (see rejection of claim 11); and a vehicle support structure (18) supporting the plurality of plates and the projector (see fig.2).
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) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang US 20230406099 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Frayne US 20180188548.
5. Chang does not explicitly disclose the plurality of plates are steerable.
Frayne discloses a virtual display system, figs.1-7 and 19-24, further comprises at least one motor actuator assembly (para.49) configured to move one or more parts of display includes a reflective plate (130)(para.49) for the purpose of moving one or more parts of the display to change the position and/or orientation of the displayed aerial plane (para.49).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further comprises at least one motor actuator assembly configured to move one or more parts of display includes a reflective plate as taught by Frayne in the virtual display system of Chang in order to have the plurality of plates are steerable for the purpose of moving one or more parts of the display to change the position and/or orientation of the displayed aerial plane.
6. Chang discloses the plurality of reflective surfaces are movable to direct the plurality of sub-light beams at the plurality of viewers to display a plurality of images to the plurality of viewers concurrently.
Chang discloses the plurality of reflective surfaces direct the plurality of sub-light beams at the plurality of viewers to display a plurality of images to the plurality of viewers concurrently (see figs.2 and 9).
Chang does not explicitly disclose the plurality of reflective surfaces are movable.
Frayne discloses a virtual display system, figs.1-7 and 19-24, at least one motor actuator assembly (para.49) configured to move one or more parts of display includes a reflective plate (130)(para.49) for the purpose of moving one or more parts of the display to change the position and/or orientation of the displayed aerial plane (para.49).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further comprises at least one motor actuator assembly configured to move one or more parts of display includes a reflective plate as taught by Frayne in the virtual display system of Chang in order to have the plurality of reflective surfaces are movable for the purpose of moving one or more parts of the display to change the position and/or orientation of the displayed aerial plane.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 13 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:
Regarding claim 12, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest the claim limitations of “a plurality of eye trackers configured to track locations and gaze directions of the eyes of the plurality of viewers; a plurality of actuator assemblies configured to adjust locations and orientations of the plurality of plates; and a control module configured, based on the locations and the gaze directions of the eyes, to adjust the locations and orientations of the plurality of plates”, along with other claim limitations. Claim 13 is depended on claim 12 so it is allowable for the same reason.
Chang US 20230406099 and Frayne US 20180188548, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest claim limitations of “a plurality of eye trackers configured to track locations and gaze directions of the eyes of the plurality of viewers; a plurality of actuator assemblies configured to adjust locations and orientations of the plurality of plates; and a control module configured, based on the locations and the gaze directions of the eyes, to adjust the locations and orientations of the plurality of plates”, along with other claim limitations. Claim 13 is depended on claim 12 so it is allowable for the same reason.
Contact Information
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Balogh US 2003/0156077 (figs.1-6 and 12-13) can be a primary reference too).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIA X PAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7574. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 11:00AM - 5:00PM.
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, Michael H Caley can be reached at (571)272-2286. 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.
/JIA X PAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights