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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 6, 4th paragraph, filed January 6, 2026, with respect to the objection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to the specification has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-11 have been considered but are moot because new grounds of rejection are made in view of Anzai (US012339448B2).
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi 1 (US011526005B2) and Anzai (US012339448B2).
As per Claim 1, Choi 1 teaches an augmented reality display device causing a user perceives a first image and a second image at different distances in a state where the user can perceive a real environment (display configured to change display positions of a plurality of virtual images displayed through a windshield to implement augmented reality, display a first virtual image, display a second virtual image, Abstract; display may form a first virtual image at a first position close to the windshield, and form a second virtual image at a second position located relatively farther from the windshield, col. 22, lines 47-51), the augmented reality display device comprising: a display panel configured to emit first polarized light for the first image and second polarized light for the second image (display layer may display a first virtual image corresponding to linearly-polarized light in a first direction in a first display region of the windshield, and display a second virtual image corresponding to linearly-polarized light in a second direction in a second display region of the windshield, col. 2, lines 33-39); a surface-divided polarization conversion component (12) placed at a position where the first polarized light and the second polarized light enter (image mechanism may include an image source configured to emit first linearly-polarized light and a half-wave phase retarder 12 configured to convert a part of linearly-polarized light in a first direction emitted from the image source into linearly-polarized light in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction by a half wavelength, col. 18, lines 43-49); and an optical element (4) and a concave semi-transparent mirror (3), each placed at a position where the first polarized light and the second polarized light, having been transmitted through the surface-divided polarization conversion component, enter (linearly-polarized light in the first direction emitted from the first region of the linear polarizer is incident on the half-wave phase retarder 12 and converted into linearly-polarized light in the second direction by a half wavelength, and emitted from the half-wave phase retarder 12 toward the polarized reflective mirror 4, col. 20, lines 17-22; first reflective mirror 3 may reflect light reflected by the polarized reflective mirror 4 or light transmitted through the polarized reflective mirror 4 toward the windshield, col 20, lines 48-50; first reflective mirror 3 may be a concave mirror, col. 20, lines 55-56), wherein: the surface-divided polarization conversion component, in a plan view, includes: a first transmissive part which transmits the first polarized light for the first image, and a second transmissive part which transmits the second polarized light for the second image and introduces a second phase difference that is different, by λ/2, from a first phase difference introduced by the first transmissive part (image mechanism, which is a combination of the image source and the half-wave phase retarder 12, may by a type of heterogeneous linear-polarized light transmitter for emitting two linearly-polarized lights having different polarization directions through different regions, col. 20, lines 41-45), the optical element is configured to make a first virtual image distance, of the first image, that is generated from the first polarized light having been transmitted through the first transmissive part, different from a second virtual image distance, of the second image, that is generated from the second polarized light having been transmitted through the second transmissive part (when a distance between the windshield and the first virtual image is L1, a distance between the windshield and the second virtual image is L2, a distance between the polarized reflective mirror 4 and second reflective mirror is D1, and a thickness of the polarized reflective mirror 4 is F, distance L2 between the windshield and second virtual image may be equal to or larger than a sum of the distance (L1) between the windshield and first virtual image, twice the distance (D1) between the polarized reflective mirror 4 and the second reflective mirror, and twice the thickness (F) of the polarized reflective mirror 4, col. 23, lines 42-54).
However, Choi 1 does not teach the optical element is disposed in an optical path of light, emitted from the display panel toward the user, on a side of the concave semi-transparent mirror proximate to the user. However, Anzai teaches the optical element (26, Fig. 1) is disposed in an optical path of light, emitted from the display panel (14) toward the user (O), on a side of the concave semi-transparent mirror (18) proximate to the user (light beam modulated according to a projection image is scanned by the light deflector 36 and formed into a real image by the intermediate image screen 14, and the real image is reflected by the reflection memory 16 and the concave mirror 18 to travel along a predetermined optical path, this reflected light is transmitted through the transmission window 24 provided in the dashboard 20, projected onto the windshield glass 26, and observed by the user O (see the chain line), col. 5, lines 37-46; windshield glass 26 has a structure in which a half-mirror film 60 is sandwiched between intermediate films 62, col. 31, lines 33-36; half-mirror film 60 that reflects p-polarized light, col. 31, line 47; Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Choi 1 so that the optical element is disposed in an optical path of light, emitted from the display panel toward the user, on a side of the concave semi-transparent mirror proximate to the user because Anzai suggests that this way it can suppress the decrease in brightness of a projection image and the loss of color balance of a projection image even when the wavelength of a light beam has varied (col. 2, lines 55-61).
As per Claim 2, Choi 1 teaches wherein the first transmissive part is a non-conversion part that transmits the first polarized light for the first image without converting a polarization state of the first polarized light (the second virtual image may be formed by a short optical path leading to the image source, polarized reflective mirror 4, first reflective mirror 3, polarized reflective mirror 4, first reflective mirror 3 and windshield, col. 22, lines 56-60), and the second transmissive part is a conversion part that converts a polarization state of the second polarized light for the second image by introducing the second phase difference of λ/2 to the second polarized light for the second image (the first virtual image may be formed by a short optical path leading to the image source, half-wave phase retarder 12, polarized reflective mirror 4, first reflective mirror 3 and windshield, col. 22, lines 52-55).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi 1 (US011526005B2) and Anzai (US012339448B2) in view of Tanaka (US 20190391390A1).
Choi 1 and Anzai are relied upon for the teachings as discussed above relative to Claim 2.
However, Choi 1 and Anzai do not teach wherein the conversion part includes a resin layer with the second phase difference of λ/2. However, Tanaka teaches wherein the conversion part includes a resin layer with the second phase difference of λ/2 (by using ultraviolet curable resins, it is possible to more effectively prevent the reduction of the phase difference value of the half-wave plate, [0083]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Choi 1 and Anzai so that the conversion part includes a resin layer with the second phase difference of λ/2 because Tanaka suggests that this prevents reduction of the phase difference value of the half-wave plate due to erosion of a plasticizer or the like [0089].
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi 1 (US011526005B2) and Anzai (US012339448B2) in view of Sakurai (US 20180108307A1).
Choi 1 and Anzai are relied upon for the teachings as discussed above relative to Claim 1.
However, Choi 1 and Anzai do not teach wherein the second transmissive part in a cross-sectional view includes a pair of substrates and a liquid crystal layer placed between the pair of substrates, and the second phase difference is variable depending on a voltage applied to the liquid crystal layer. However, Sakurai teaches wherein the second transmissive part in a cross-sectional view includes a pair of substrates and a liquid crystal layer placed between the pair of substrates, and the second phase difference is variable depending on a voltage applied to the liquid crystal layer (alignment of liquid crystal molecules contained in a liquid crystal layer enclosed between a pair of transparent substrates is changed to generate a phase difference by applying a voltage between electrodes provided on the liquid crystal layer side of each transparent substrate, [0002]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Choi 1 and Anzai so that the second transmissive part in a cross-sectional view includes a pair of substrates and a liquid crystal layer placed between the pair of substrates, and the second phase difference is variable depending on a voltage applied to the liquid crystal layer because Sakurai suggests that this is a well-known in the art manner to introduce the phase difference [0002].
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi 1 (US011526005B2) and Anzai (US012339448B2) in view of Dong (US 20220100030A1).
Choi 1 and Anzai are relied upon for the teachings as discussed above relative to Claim 1.
However, Choi 1 and Anzai do not teach wherein the optical element includes a liquid crystal lens, and the liquid crystal lens: acts as a lens with a first focal length for the first polarized light, and does not act as a lens, or acts as a lens with a second focal length, for the second polarized light. However, Dong teaches wherein the optical element includes a liquid crystal lens, and the liquid crystal lens: acts as a lens with a first focal length for the first polarized light, and does not act as a lens, or acts as a lens with a second focal length, for the second polarized light (liquid crystal lens focus the first circularly polarized light rays of the n images to positions of n different first focal lengths and focus the second circularly polarized light rays of the remaining n images at positions of n different second focal lengths, [0077], first circularly polarized light rays of the first image is focused at a position of the first focal length after passing the polarization lens and the liquid crystal lens, and the second circularly polarized light rays of the second image is focused at a position of the second focal length after passing the polarization lens and the liquid crystal lens, [0079]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Choi 1 and Anzai so that the optical element includes a liquid crystal lens, and the liquid crystal lens: acts as a lens with a first focal length for the first polarized light, and does not act as a lens, or acts as a lens with a second focal length, for the second polarized light because Dong suggests that this way, close-range images and long-range images are located at different image planes, which is consistent with the situation of the human eye viewing an actual scene, and thus does not cause visual fatigue [0004, 0077, 0079].
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi 1 (US011526005B2), Anzai (US012339448B2), and Dong (US 20220100030A1) in view of Chen (US 20230333380A1).
Choi 1, Anzai, and Dong are relied upon for the teachings as discussed above relative to Claim 5.
However, Choi 1, Anzai, and Dong do not teach wherein the liquid crystal lens is a refractive lens, a gradient-index lens, or a diffractive lens. However, Chen teaches wherein the liquid crystal lens is a refractive lens, a gradient-index lens (liquid crystal lenses, where the no-zero optical power of the lens may be provided by the refractive index gradient, [0107]), or a diffractive lens (liquid crystal lens may including a diffractive optical element, [0108]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Choi 1, Anzai, and Dong so that the liquid crystal lens is a refractive lens, a gradient-index lens, or a diffractive lens as suggested by Chen. It is well-known in the art that a liquid crystal diffractive lens has the advantages of variable focal length, of being flat and thin, high efficiency, fast response, and low power.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi 1 (US011526005B2), Anzai (US012339448B2), and Dong (US 20220100030A1) in view of Shipton (US 20210072585A1).
Choi 1, Anzai, and Dong are relied upon for the teachings as discussed above relative to Claim 5.
However, Choi 1, Anzai, and Dong do not teach wherein the liquid crystal lens is a Pancharatnam-Berry phase lens. However, Shipton teaches wherein the liquid crystal lens is a Pancharatnam-Berry phase lens (liquid crystal patterning control system includes a Pancharatnam-Berry phase lens, [0144]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Choi 1, Anzai, and Dong so that the liquid crystal lens is a Pancharatnam-Berry phase lens as suggested by Shipton. It is well-known in the art that a Pancharatnam-Berry phase lens has the advantages of being thin, achieving high diffraction efficiencies, and switching between different focal lengths quickly.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi 1 (US011526005B2), Anzai (US012339448B2), and Dong (US 20220100030A1) in view of Feng (US 20230288775A1).
Choi 1, Anzai, and Dong are relied upon for the teachings as discussed above relative to Claim 5.
However, Choi 1, Anzai, and Dong do not teach wherein the liquid crystal lens includes a liquid crystal layer and has a focal length that is variable depending on a voltage applied to the liquid crystal layer. However, Feng teaches wherein the liquid crystal lens includes a liquid crystal layer and has a focal length that is variable depending on a voltage applied to the liquid crystal layer (adjusting of first driving voltage and second driving voltage may adjust potential distribution in annular zone corresponding to each of electrode units, so as to adjust entire potential distribution of liquid crystal lens to adjust focal length of liquid crystal lens, [0056]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Choi 1, Anzai, and Dong so that the liquid crystal lens includes a liquid crystal layer and has a focal length that is variable depending on a voltage applied to the liquid crystal layer because Feng suggests that this overcomes the technical problems that adjusting the focal length of a lens in the prior art requires independently driving a large number of electrodes, and the control method being complicated [0005].
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi 1 (US011526005B2), Anzai (US012339448B2), in view of Ouderkirk (US 20200371370A1).
Choi 1 and Anzai are relied upon for the teachings as discussed above relative to Claim 1.
However, Choi 1 and Anzai do not teach further comprising a polarization selective reflector placed at another position where the first polarized light and the second polarized light, having been transmitted through the surface-divided polarization conversion component, enter. However, Ouderkirk teaches further comprising a polarization selective reflector placed at another position where the first polarized light and the second polarized light, having been transmitted through the surface-divided polarization conversion component, enter (as the circularly polarized light 472 passes through the phase retarder 440, the phase retarder 440 converts the circularly polarized light 472 to linearly polarized light 474 and transmit the linearly polarized light 474 toward the second polarization selective reflector 420, [0181]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Choi 1 and Anzai to include a polarization selective reflector placed at another position where the first polarized light and the second polarized light, having been transmitted through the surface-divided polarization conversion component, enter because Ouderkirk suggests that this provides a more compact and lightweight head-mounted display device [0103].
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi 1 (US011526005B2) and Anzai (US012339448B2) in view of Choi 2 (US 20160356943A1).
Choi 1 and Anzai are relied upon for the teachings as discussed above relative to Claim 1.
However, Choi 1 and Anzai do not teach further comprising: a combination of an additional surface-divided polarization conversion component and an additional liquid crystal lens. However, Choi 2 teaches further comprising: a combination of an additional surface-divided polarization conversion component (first switchable phase retarder, second switchable phase retarder, [0093]) and an additional liquid crystal lens (first group of switchable liquid crystal lens structures, second group of switchable liquid crystal lens structures, Claim 13 of Choi 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Choi 1 and Anzai to include a combination of an additional surface-divided polarization conversion component and an additional liquid crystal lens because Choi 2 suggests that this way, the phase compensation function for oblique viewing angles can be adjusted [0094].
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi 1 (US011526005B2) and Anzai (US012339448B2) in view of Shipton (US 20210072585A1).
Choi 1 and Anzai are relied upon for the teachings as discussed above relative to Claim 1.
However, Choi 1 and Anzai do not expressly teach a head-mounted display device comprising the augmented reality display device. However, Shipton teaches a head-mounted display device comprising the augmented reality display device (artificial reality may include an augmented reality system, the artificial reality system may be implemented on various platforms, including a head-mounted display, [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Choi 1 and Anzai to include a head-mounted display device comprising the augmented reality display device as suggested by Shipton. It is well-known in the art that a head-mounted display device provides significant advantages, including a deeply immersive and interactive experience for augmented reality, being highly versatile, applicable across many industries, and improves situational awareness and safety by providing crucial data directly in the user’s line of sight.
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 JONI HSU whose telephone number is (571)272-7785. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6:30pm.
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, Kee Tung can be reached at (571)272-7794. 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.
JH
/JONI HSU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights