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
Applicants’ arguments filed 7/7/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicant’s argument, “Claim 1 has been amended to recite, among other features, that the first light guide plate is on a far side as viewed from the optical engine, that the second light guide plate is on a near side as viewed from the optical engine, and that the optical element is disposed at a location corresponding to at least one of the first input diffraction grating or the second input diffraction grating and is installed via an air layer or a low-refractive-index material layer between the first light guide plate and the optical element. Wall does not disclose this amended arrangement.” Examiner respectfully asserts that an air gap (par. 0037) or material layer (108 or spacers) meets the claimed amendment as a structure or boundary is not claimed as with respect to what the index is measured. Furthermore, the claim does not preclude other structures from being between the light guide plates.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 10, filed 7/7/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Alasaarela (U.S. PG Pub. # 2022/0390744 A1) in an obvious type rejection.
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.
Claims 1 – 14, 16 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wall et al. (U.S. PG Pub. # 2017/0235142).
In Re claim 1, ‘142 teaches an image display apparatus (fig. 4), comprising: an optical engine (204); at least two light guide plates (100B, 100R); and an optical element (112G, 422B, 422G or 100G) disposed between a first light guide plate and a second light guide plate that constitute the at least two light guide plates, wherein the first light guide plate (100R) is a light guide plate on a far side as viewed from the optical engine, the second light guide plate (100B) is a light guide plate on a near side as viewed from the optical engine, a first input diffraction grating (112R, par. 0025, 0050) and a first output diffraction grating (116R, pars. 0025, 0050) are disposed in the first light guide plate, a second input diffraction grating (112B, pars. 0025, 0050) and a second output diffraction grating (116B, pars. 0025, 0050) are disposed in the second light guide plate, the first optical element is disposed at a location corresponding to at least one of the first input diffraction grating or the second input diffraction grating (fig. 4) and is installed via at least one of an air layer or a low-refractive-index material layer between the first light guide plate and the optical element (par. 0037), light having a first wavelength band, which is emitted from the optical engine, is guided into the first light guide plate through the second input diffraction grating, the optical element, and the first input diffraction grating in this order, propagated by total reflection, and emitted outside the first light guide plate through the first output diffraction grating, and light having a second wavelength band, which is emitted from the optical engine, is guided into the second light guide plate through the second input diffraction grating, propagated by total reflection, and emitted outside the second light guide plate through the second output diffraction grating (fig. 4).
In Re claim 2, ‘142 teaches wherein an air layer (par.0037) and a low-refractive-index material layer (422B) is disposed between the first light guide plate and the optical element (112G, 422B, 422G or 100G, par. 0075).
In Re claim 3, ‘142 teaches wherein the optical element is a wavelength-selective optical element (par. 0075).
In Re claim 4, ‘142 teaches an absorption type filter (100G as a whole absorbs energy from the wavelengths within to some degree, such as not letting some through at all or par. 0075).
In Re claim 5, ‘142 teaches wherein the wavelength-selective optical element is a reflective multi-layer coating. (par. 0075).
In Re claim 6, ‘142 teaches wherein the optical element (100G) includes a wavelength polarization separation filter and an absorption-type polarizing plate (pars. 0065 – 0067).
In Re claim 7, ‘142 teaches wherein the optical element (100G) includes a polarizing plate (112G), a wavelength polarization separation filter (422G on left side of 100G or 116G), and an absorption-type polarizing plate (422B or one of the layers of 422, par. 0065 – 0067).
In Re claim 8, ‘142 teaches wherein at least one diffraction grating of the first input diffraction grating, the first output diffraction grating, the second input diffraction grating, or the second output diffraction grating is a surface relief diffraction grating (par. 0027).
In Re claim 9, ‘142 teaches wherein at least one diffraction grating of the first input diffraction grating, the first output diffraction grating, the second input diffraction grating, or the second output diffraction grating is a volume hologram (par. 0026).
In Re claim 10, ‘142 teaches wherein at least one diffraction grating of the first input diffraction grating, the first output diffraction grating, the second input diffraction grating, or the second output diffraction grating is a reflective diffraction grating (par. 0025).
In Re claim 11, ‘142 teaches wherein at least one diffraction grating of the first input diffraction grating, the first output diffraction grating, the second input diffraction grating, or the second output diffraction grating is a transmissive diffraction grating (pars. 0023, 0048).
In Re claim 12, since the grating are manufactured into the light guide plates the indices are all identical as claimed.
In Re claim 13, it is known the refractive indices depend upon the wavelength which traverses a light guide plate or grating, thus the refractive indices will be different for each claimed structure with a different wavelength traversing each claimed light guide plate or grating as the wavelength has not been claimed.
In Re claim 14, ‘142 teaches wherein a third diffraction grating (114) is further disposed in each of the first light guide plate and the second light guide plate.
In Re claim 16, ‘142 teaches wherein an incident angle at which the light having the first wavelength band is incident on the second input diffraction grating and an incident angle at which the light having the second wavelength band is incident on the second input diffraction grating are different from each other (pars. 0048 – 0050).
In Re claim 21, ‘142 teaches a display apparatus, comprising: a frame mounted onto a head of a user; and an image display apparatus attached to the frame, wherein the image display apparatus is the image display apparatus according to claim 1 (pars. 0045).
Furthermore, the patentability of an apparatus depends only on the claimed structural limitations. ‘142 teaches a structure that is substantially identical to that of the claimed invention, therefore the claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The burden is on the applicant to show that the ‘142 device does not possess these functional characteristics. See MPEP 2112.01.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wall et al. (U.S. PG Pub. # 2017/0235142).
‘142 teaches the apparatus of claim 1, but is silent to the colors of the bands as claimed.
‘142 teaches that order of the stacking of the plates (100) can be changed (par. 0047) and the wavelength ranges can vary (par. 0094).
Thus, 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 gratings of fig. 4 of ‘140 to allow for the first and third bands to be blue light and for the second band to be green and red light, so as to allow for a desired operational bandwidth of the apparatus and to increase the angular bandwidth of the device, as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
Claims 1 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alasaarela (U.S. PG Pub. # 2022/0390744 A1).
In Re claims 1 and 15, ‘744 teaches an image display apparatus (fig. 8), comprising: an optical engine (120); at least two light guide plates (230, 330); wherein the first light guide plate (330) is a light guide plate on a far side as viewed from the optical engine, the second light guide plate (230) is a light guide plate on a near side as viewed from the optical engine,
a first input diffraction grating (312, par. 0035, 0039) and a first output diffraction grating (316, par. 0035) are disposed in the first light guide plate, a second input diffraction grating (212) and a second output diffraction grating (216) are disposed in the second light guide plate, light having a first wavelength band (325), which is emitted from the optical engine, is guided into the first light guide plate through the second input diffraction grating, the optical element, and the first input diffraction grating in this order, propagated by total reflection, and emitted outside the first light guide plate through the first output diffraction grating, and light having a second wavelength band (322), which is emitted from the optical engine, is guided into the second light guide plate through the second input diffraction grating, propagated by total reflection, and emitted outside the second light guide plate through the second output diffraction grating (fig. 8); wherein the light having the first wavelength band is blue light, and the light having the second wavelength band is green light and red light (par.0037).
‘744 of the embodiment of fig. 8 is silent to an optical element disposed between the first light guide plate and the second light guide plate that constitute the at least two light guide plates and the first optical element is disposed at a location corresponding to at least one of the first input diffraction grating or the second input diffraction grating and is installed via at least one of an air layer or a low-refractive-index material layer between the first light guide plate and the optical element.
Pars. 0049 and 0050 teach that a quarter wave plate or dielectric filter may be placed between waveguide plates to increase the incoupling of light to each respective waveguide (par. 0041, 0042).
Thus, 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 embodiment of fig. 8 to add a quarter waveplate or dielectric filter as an optical element between the waveguide plates with an air gap as claimed (par. 0002, 0033), so as to increase the incoupling of light to each respective waveguide as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
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 CHAD SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-1294. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 5.
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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at 1-571-272-2397. 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.
/CHAD H SMITH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights