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
The instant application having Application No. 18691498 filed on 03/31/2022 is presented for examination by the examiner.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Priority
As required by e M.P.E.P. 210, 214.03, acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on National Stage entry of PCT/JP2022/016758 , International Filing Date: 03/31/2022 that claims foreign priority to JP 2021-154371, filed 09/22/2021 and JP 2021-189574, filed 11/22/2021(Japan).
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
However, to overcome a prior art rejection, applicant(s) must submit a translation of the foreign priority papers in order to perfect the claimed foreign priority because said papers has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. See MPEP § 213.04
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5,7-10,15, 28 and 29 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 12265220 as US application #18496594). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as outlined in claims correspondence table below:
Instant application #18691498
US Pat. # 12265220
Notes
1
1,2,7
2
3
3
4
4
5
LED display with LED elements as pixels of the display
5
5
7
6
8
1
9
7
10
7
15
8
28
1,7
29
8
*** used 103 Lebens 20050007593
Note that US Patent No. 12265220 as US application #18496594 was filed after the filing of the instant application. However, a two-way test was not applied given that there is no evidence that the Office is solely responsible for any delays and Applicant could not have filed the claims in a single application (MPEP §804 Sec. II B. 5.).
Claims 1-5,7-11,15, 20, 28 and 30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8, 10, 13 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12535680 (US App. # 18538112). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as outlined in claims correspondence table below:
Instant application #18691498
US Pat. # 12535680
Notes
1
1; 13; 15
2
1
3
2
4
1,3
LED display with LED elements as pixels of the display
5
4
7
5
8
15
9
6
10
7
11
15; 13
15
8
20
10; 13,14
28
13; 15
30
13; 15
*** USED Tonar 20090040588 Le Gros 20150253469
Note that U.S. Patent No. 12535680, as US App. # 18538112 was filed after the filing of the instant application. However, a two-way test was not applied given that there is no evidence that the Office is solely responsible for any delays and Applicant could not have filed the claims in a single application (MPEP §804 Sec. II B. 5.).
Claim 1-5,7-10,15,20 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1,6-13 and 15 of copending Application No. 18978166 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as explained in the claims correspondence table below:
Instant application #18691498
Co-pending #18978166
Notes
1
1
2
6
3
7
4
8
LED display with LED elements as pixels of the display
5
9
7
10
8
13,14
9
11
10
11
15
12
20
13
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1-5,7-10,15,20,28 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1,8-16 of copending Application No. 18956890 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as explained in the claims correspondence table below:
Instant application #18691498
Co-pending #18956890
Notes
1
1
2
8
3
9
4
10
LED display with LED elements as pixels of the display
5
11
7
12
8
15,16
9
13
10
13
15
14
20
15
28
15, 16
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1-5,7,9-10, and 15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1,6-13 of copending Application No. 18543765 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as explained in the claims correspondence table below:
Instant application #18691498
Co-pending #18543765
Notes
1
1
2
6
3
7
4
8
5
9
7
10
9
11
10
12
15
13
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
(telecentric or tele centricity
6 and (windscreen or windshield or car or vehicle or automobile)
Claim 1-5,7-13, 15, 20 and 28 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-4, 8-16 of copending Application No. 18390954 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as explained in the claims correspondence table below:
Instant application #18691498
Co-pending #18390954
Notes
1
1
2
8
3
9
4
10
5
11
7
12
8
16
9
13
10
13
11
2
12
3
13
4
15
14
20
15
28
16
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
*** USED 20220350139 20170146809
Claim 1-5,7-10, 15, and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 9-16 of copending Application No. 18511505 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as explained in the claims correspondence table below:
Instant application #18691498
Co-pending #18511505
Notes
1
1
2
9
3
10
4
11
5
12
7
13
8
16
9
14
10
14
15
15
20
16
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1-5,7-10, 15, and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 9-16 of copending Application No. 18516895 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as explained in the claims correspondence table below:
Instant application #18691498
Co-pending #18516895
Notes
1
1,2
2
4
3
5
4
6
5
7
20
10
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1-5,7-10, 15, and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 6-13 of copending Application No. 18543762 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as explained in the claims correspondence table below:
Instant application #18691498
Co-pending #18543762
Notes
1
1
2
6
3
7
4
8
5
9
7
10
9
11
10
12
15
13
20
1
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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) 1-15, 20 and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirata et al. (hereafter Hirata, of record, see IDS dated 07/15/2024) US 20240061240 A1 in view of Kawamura (of record, see IDS dated 09/05/2025) US 20070024977 A1.
In regard to independent claim 1, Hirata teaches (see Figs. 1-24) a light source unit (video display apparatus and light source, e.g. HUD apparatus 1000, e.g. Abstract, paragraphs [ 02,05-11, 3-43, 45-48,60-62, 73-84, 90-101], e.g. Figs. 1-3,4,with details in Figs. 5-19) comprising:
a display device configured to emit light having a substantially Lambertian light distribution and to display an image (display apparatus 1, 4 with LEDs and angle diffusion property, including diffuse block 16 and diffuse plate 18a,b emitting image light of a video image, paragraphs [43,45-48,50, 73-84, 90-104,111,113], e.g. Figs. 9-15); and
an imaging optical system (as video display apparatus e.g. 1000, paragraphs [45-48,60-62]) comprising:
an input element on which light emitted from the display device is incident (e.g. beam splitter or reflection-type light polarizer 2140, with or without retroreflective member 2, 2100, also collimator 15,18 of 1,10, paragraphs [45-48,60-62, 73-84, 90-104], e.g. Figs. 1,3,4-5, 12-15) and
an output element on which light traveling via the input element is incident (i.e. mirror 2110, with or without retroreflective member 2, 2100, paragraphs [45-48,60-62, 73-84], e.g. Figs. 1,3,4-5), the output element being configured to emit light forming a first image corresponding to the image (i.e. as video image e.g. 220 formed by reflection from 2100,2, paragraphs [45-48,60-62, 73-84], e.g. Figs. 1,3,4-5), wherein:
the imaging optical system is substantially telecentric at the first image side (i.e. as given parallel light rays forming video image at 220 side, depicted in Fig. 5, paragraphs [45-48,60-62, 73-84], e.g. Figs. 1,3,4).
Hirata thus teaches display device configured to emit light having the substantially light distribution but does not explicitly mention Lambertian distribution ( i.e. given that display apparatus 1, 4 with LEDs has angle diffusion property, and structure diffuse block 16 and diffuse plate 18a,b emitting image light of a video image, paragraphs [43,45-48,50, 73-84, 90-104,111,113], e.g. Figs. 11-15), nor explicitly telecentric at the first image side (although Hirata teaches the structure where parallel light rays forming video image at 220 side, depicted in Fig. 5, paragraphs [45-48,60-62, 73-84], e.g. Figs. 1,3,4).
However, Kawamura teaches in the same field of invention of light source apparatus and display apparatus (e.g. see Figs. 1-8, Title, Abstract, paragraphs [16-27,55-62,68-76,91-98]) and further teaches that display device configured to emit light having substantially Lambertian distribution ( i.e. as light source e.g. 11 LEDs have characteristic of Lambert distribution, paragraphs [16,55-62,68-76,91-98], allowing effectively condensing and illuminating light irradiated from a light source relative to a predetermined range with smaller irregularity, as well as attaining miniaturization and a thinner size, paragraphs [16,55,57,68]), and that imaging system telecentric at the first image side (i.e. as emission light sources and the light-condensed illuminated surface is telecentric with rear (and front) optical components 64,62, paragraphs [31,49,91-93,97-99], as it is preferable to increase brightness of light illumination).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the display apparatus with LEDs, and the video apparatus optical system of Hirata to have Lambertian light distribution, and be telecentric at first image side, respectively, according to teachings of Kawamura in order to allow for effective condensing and illumination of light irradiated from light source relative to a predetermined range with smaller irregularity while attaining miniaturization and a thinner size, (see paragraphs [16,55,57,68]), and provide that imaging system is telecentric as it is preferable to increase brightness of light illumination (see paragraphs [31,49,91-93,97-99]).
Regarding claim 2, the Hirata-Kawamura combination teaches the invention as set forth above, and Hirata teaches (see Figs. 1-24) that
the light emitted from the display device has a light distribution pattern in which a luminous intensity in a direction of an angle 0 with respect to an optical axis of the light emitted from the display device is approximated by cosn q times a luminous intensity at the optical axis, where n is a value greater than 0 ( i.e. given that display apparatus 1, 4 with LEDs having angle diffusion property, and structure diffuse block 16 and diffuse plate 18a,b emitting image light of a video image, paragraphs [43,45-48,50, 73-84, 90-104,111,113], e.g. Figs. 11-15, as adapted per Kawamura paragraphs [16,55-66], and given the definition of Lambertian distribution, e.g. with n=1.)
Regarding claim 3, the Hirata-Kawamura combination teaches the invention as set forth above, and Hirata teaches (see Figs. 1-24) that n is not more than 11( i.e. given that display apparatus 1, 4 with LEDs having angle diffusion property, and structure diffuse block 16 and diffuse plate 18a,b emitting image light of a video image, paragraphs [43,45-48,50, 73-84, 90-104,111,113], e.g. Figs. 11-15, as adapted per Kawamura paragraphs [16,55-66], and given the definition of Lambertian distribution, e.g. with n=1.)
Regarding claim 4, the Hirata-Kawamura combination teaches the invention as set forth above, and Hirata teaches (see Figs. 1-24) that the display device is an LED display, the LED display includes comprises a plurality of pixels, and LED elements are located in the pixels (i.e. as 1 includes LED display 13 board 202,102 with LED 201, 14elements as pixels, e.g. paragraphs [54-55,73-84, 90-104,111,113], e.g. Figs. 6-7, 9-15, and as adapted per Kawamura paragraphs [16,55-66]).
Regarding claim 5, the Hirata-Kawamura combination teaches the invention as set forth above, and Hirata teaches (see Figs. 1-24) that light emitted from each LED element has a substantially Lambertian light distribution (i.e. as LED display 13 board 202,102 with LEDs 201, 14 e.g. paragraphs [54-55,73-84, 90-104,111,113], e.g. Figs. 6-7, 9-15, and as adapted per Kawamura paragraphs [16,55-66]).
Regarding claim 6, the Hirata-Kawamura combination teaches the invention as set forth above, and Hirata teaches (see Figs. 1-24) that the display device further includes comprises a substrate (i.e. as LED display 13 board 202,102), the LED element is elements are mounted to the substrate 13 board 202,102 with LEDs 201, 14 e.g. paragraphs [,73-84, 90-104,111,113], e.g. Figs. 9-15), and a plurality of recesses or a plurality of protrusions is provided in a light-emitting surface of each LED element ( as LEDs have angle diffusion property, due to diffuse block 16 and diffuse plate 18a,b with diffuse uneven texture e.g. 161, at the emitting image light side surface, paragraphs [43,45-48,50, 73-84, 90-104,111,113], e.g. Figs. 13-15).
Regarding claim 7, the Hirata-Kawamura combination teaches the invention as set forth above, and Hirata teaches (see Figs. 1-24) that the display device further comprises a wavelength conversion member located on the LED element, and light emitted from the LED element is incident on the wavelength conversion member (i.e. as LED display 13 board 202,102 with LED 201, 14elements as pixels including color conversion e.g. B, G, R member see detail in Fig. 7, e.g. paragraphs [54-55,73-84, 90-104,111,113], e.g. Figs. 6-7, 9-15).
Regarding claim 8, the Hirata-Kawamura combination teaches the invention as set forth above, and Hirata teaches (see Figs. 1-24) further comprising:
a first reflective polarizing element located on the display device (e.g. as reflection-type light polarizer in/on 1, 10, e.g. 49, 21, 200, see paragraphs [68, 71, 79-85, 94-95, 104-107], e.g. Figs. 10-15) wherein:
the first reflective polarizing element transmitting is configured to transmit a first polarized light of the light emitted from the display device and reflecting to reflect a second polarized light of the light emitted from the display device (i.e. as reflective polarizer reflects one polarization light and transmits another polarization light of 1,10,11, 49, 21, 200, see paragraphs [68, 71, 79-85, 94-95, 104-107], Figs. 10-15).
Regarding claim 9, the Hirata-Kawamura combination teaches the invention as set forth above, and Hirata teaches (see Figs. 1-24) the imaging optical system (1000) comprises a bending part including that comprises the input element (e.g. as beam splitter or reflection-type light polarizer 2140, with retroreflective member 2, 2100, guide body 17,170 paragraphs [45-48,60-62, 73-84, 94-104], e.g. Figs. 1,3,4-5, 13-15), the bending part is configured to bend a plurality of chief rays, which are emitted from mutually different positions of the display device (2140, with retroreflective member 2, 2100, guide body 17,170 from different positions on 1,10, paragraphs [45-48,60-62, 73-84, 94-104], e.g. as depicted Figs. 1,3,4-5, 13-15), cross each other before being incident on the input element ( i.e. before e.g. 2140, see paragraphs [45-48,60-62, 73-84, 94-104], e.g. as depicted Figs. 1,3,4-5, 13-15), and reaches reach the first image (near 220, Figs. 1,3,4-5, 13-15), and the bending part is configured to bend the plurality of chief rays to be substantially parallel before and after the first image (i.e. at 220, as depicted Figs. 1,3,4-5, 13-15).
Regarding claim 10, the Hirata-Kawamura combination teaches the invention as set forth above, and Hirata teaches (see Figs. 1-24) the imaging optical system (1000) further comprises a direction modifying part that comprises the output element (i.e. as 2110, 2120 , paragraphs [45-48,60-62, 73-84], e.g. Figs. 1,3,4-5), and the direction modifying part is configured to modify a travel direction of the plurality of chief rays (i.e. as 2110, 2120 , paragraphs [45-48,60-62, 73-84], e.g. Figs. 1,3,4-5) so that the plurality of chief rays traveling via the bending part are oriented toward a formation position of the first image (i.e. towards 220, as depicted Figs. 1,3,4-5, 13-15).
Regarding claim 11, the Hirata-Kawamura combination teaches the invention as set forth above, and Hirata teaches (see Figs. 1-24) that the input element is a first mirror reflecting configured to reflect the light emitted from the display device (e.g. as mirror surface of 15, reflecting light from source 14 of the display 1, 10, paragraphs [45-48,60-62, 73-84, 90-104], e.g. Figs. 1,3,4-5, 13-15).
Regarding claim 12, the Hirata-Kawamura combination teaches the invention as set forth above, and Hirata teaches (see Figs. 1-24) that the first mirror includes comprises a mirror surface reflecting configured to reflect the light emitted from the display device, and the mirror surface is concave (e.g. as concave mirror surface of 15, reflecting light from source 14 of the display 1, 10, paragraphs [45-48,60-62, 73-84, 90-104], e.g. Figs. 1,3,4-5, 13-15).
Regarding claim 13, the Hirata-Kawamura combination teaches the invention as set forth above, and Hirata teaches (see Figs. 1-24) that the input element is a lens on which the light emitted from the display device is incident (e.g. as lens part of 15, 18 receiving light from source 14 of the display 1, 10, paragraphs [45-48,60-62, 73-84, 90-104], e.g. Figs. 1,3,4-5, 12-15).
Regarding claim 14, the Hirata-Kawamura combination teaches the invention as set forth above, and Hirata teaches (see Figs. 1-24) that the output element is a second mirror reflecting configured to reflect light traveling via the input element toward a formation position of the first image (i.e. as 2110, 2120 , paragraphs [45-48,60-62, 73-84], as depicted e.g. Figs. 1,3,4-5).
Regarding claim 15, the Hirata-Kawamura combination teaches the invention as set forth above, and Hirata teaches (see Figs. 1-24) further comprising: a first light-shielding member located between the display device and the imaging optical system (e.g. as enclosure 110 of 1000, and as 1 includes source 13 that houses the LEDs, Figs. 3-4, 9-15, paragraphs [43, 73-75,90, 125]), wherein: the first light-shielding member comprises an aperture, a portion of light from the display device toward the imaging optical system passes through the aperture, another portion of the light from the display device toward the imaging optical system being is shielded by the first light-shielding member (e.g. as enclosure 110 of 1000, and as 1 includes source 13 that houses the LEDs include openings for light from LEDs to pass while blocking any scattered or stray light, see e.g. Figs. 3-4, 9-15, paragraphs [43, 73-75,90, 125]).
Regarding claim 20, the Hirata-Kawamura combination teaches the invention as set forth above, and Hirata teaches (see Figs. 1-24) an image display device, comprising: the light source unit according to claim 1 (as video display apparatus and light source, e.g. HUD apparatus 1000, with 1,4,10, lenses/mirrors etc. see claim 1 above, e.g. paragraphs [ 02,05-11, 3-43, 45-48,60-62, 73-84, 90-101], e.g. Figs. 1-3,4,with details in Figs. 5-19); and a reflection unit separated from the light source unit (e.g. reflector 2120 separated from 1,4, 2140-2110, paragraphs [45-48,60-62, 73-84, 90-101], e.g. Figs. 1-5), the reflection unit being configured to reflect light emitted from the imaging optical system such that the first image being is formed between the light source unit and the reflection unit (i.e. given that image light forming image passes 2140 towards 2120, paragraphs [45-48,60-62, 73-84, 90-101], e.g. Figs. 1-5).
Regarding claim 28, the Hirata-Kawamura combination teaches the invention as set forth above, and Hirata teaches (see Figs. 1-24) further comprising:
a second reflective polarizing element located in a part of an optical path from the display device to the reflection unit (e.g. as reflection-type light polarizer between 1, 10, and 2120 e.g. 2140, 49, 21, 200, see paragraphs [42-45, 68, 71, 79-85, 94-95, 104-107], e.g. Figs. 1-5, 10-15), wherein:
a plurality of chief rays being are emitted from mutually different positions of the display device (1,4,10) pass through the first image (towards 2120, and onto 220), and being are substantially parallel to each other at the part of the optical path (i.e. as depicted Fogs. 1,4-5), and
the second reflective polarizing element is configured to transmit a first polarized light of the light emitted from the display device, and to reflect a second polarized light of the light emitted from the display device so that the second polarized light returns to the display device.
(2140, e.g. as reflective polarizer reflects one polarization light and transmits another polarization light to 1,10,11, see paragraphs [42-45, 68, 71, 79-85, 94-95, 104-107], see Figs. 1,3,4-5, 13-15).
Regarding claim 29, the Hirata-Kawamura combination teaches the invention as set forth above, and Hirata teaches (see Figs. 1-24) a second light-shielding member is located between the display device and the input element (e.g. as 1 includes source 13 that houses the LEDs, Figs. 3-4, 9-15, paragraphs [43, 73-75,90, 125]), an aperture is provided in the second light-shielding member, and the second polarized light returning to the display device along the optical path passes through the aperture (e.g. as opening in source 13 that houses the LEDs, may pass at least some light reflected from 2100, 2140, Figs. 3-4, 9-15, paragraphs [43, 73-75,90, 125]).
In regard to independent claim 30, Hirata teaches (see Figs. 1-24) a light source unit (video display apparatus and light source, e.g. HUD apparatus 1000, e.g. Abstract, paragraphs [ 02,05-11, 3-43, 45-48,60-62, 73-84, 90-101], e.g. Figs. 1-3,4,with details in Figs. 5-19) comprising:
a display device configured to emit light having a substantially Lambertian light distribution and to display an image (display apparatus 1, 4 with LEDs and angle diffusion property, including diffuse block 16 and diffuse plate 18a,b emitting image light of a video image, paragraphs [43,45-48,50, 73-84, 90-104,111,113], e.g. Figs. 9-15);
a mirror configured to reflect light emitted from the display device and forming to form a first image corresponding to the image ( mirror 2110,2120, retroreflective member 2, 2100, paragraphs [45-48,60-62, 73-84, 90-104], and formed video image e.g. 220 formed by reflection from 2100,2, paragraphs [45-48,60-62, 73-84], e.g. Figs. 1,3,4-5);
a third reflective polarizing element located between the display device and the mirror (reflection-type light polarizer 2140, between 1,10 and 2110,2100, see paragraphs [45-48,60-62, 73-84, 90-104], e.g. Figs. 1,3,4-5, 12-15); and
a first waveplate located between the third reflective polarizing element and the mirror (waveplate 15, 215, between 2140 and 2100, paragraphs [45-48,60-62, 73-84, 90-104], e.g. Figs. 1,3,4-5, 12-15),
wherein:
the third reflective polarizing element is configured to transmit a first polarized light of the light emitted from the display device (i.e. as 2140, see paragraphs [45-48,60-62, 73-84, 90-104], e.g. Figs. 1,3,4-5, 12-15),
the first waveplate converting is configured to convert the first polarized light transmitted by the third reflective polarizing element into a circularly polarized light (15, 215 as quarter waveplate, paragraphs [45-49,60-62, 73-84]), the mirror is configured to reflect, toward the first waveplate, the circularly polarized light emitted from the first waveplate (i.e. as 2100, see Figs. 1,3-5, paragraphs [45-49,60-62, 73-84]), the first waveplate is configured to convert, into a second polarized light, the circularly polarized light reflected by the mirror (i.e. as 15,215 placed on top of retroreflecting 2100 see Figs. 1,3-5, paragraphs [45-49,60-62, 73-84]), the third reflective polarizing element reflecting is configured to reflect, toward a formation position of the first image, the second polarized light emitted from the first waveplate (i.e. as 2140, see paragraphs [45-48,60-62, 73-84, 90-104], e.g. Figs. 1,3,4-5), the mirror being is substantially telecentric at the first image side (i.e. as given parallel light rays forming video image at 220 side reflected from 2, 2110, 2120, depicted in Figs. 5,1,3-4 paragraphs [45-48,60-62, 73-84], e.g. Figs. 1,3,4).
the light emitted from the display device having a substantially Lambertian light distribution (display apparatus 1, 4 with LEDs and angle diffusion property, including diffuse block 16 and diffuse plate 18a,b emitting image light of a video image, paragraphs [43,45-48,50, 73-84, 90-104,111,113], e.g. Figs. 9-15).
Hirata thus teaches display device configured to emit light having the substantially light distribution but does not explicitly mention Lambertian distribution ( i.e. given that display apparatus 1, 4 with LEDs has angle diffusion property, and structure diffuse block 16 and diffuse plate 18a,b emitting image light of a video image, paragraphs [43,45-48,50, 73-84, 90-104,111,113], e.g. Figs. 11-15), nor explicitly telecentric at the first image side (although Hirata teaches the structure where parallel light rays forming video image at 220 side, depicted in Fig. 5, paragraphs [45-48,60-62, 73-84], e.g. Figs. 1,3,4).
However, Kawamura teaches in the same field of invention of light source apparatus and display apparatus (e.g. see Figs. 1-8, Title, Abstract, paragraphs [16-27,55-62,68-76,91-98]) and further teaches that display device configured to emit light having substantially Lambertian distribution ( i.e. as light source e.g. 11 LEDs have characteristic of Lambert distribution, paragraphs [16,55-62,68-76,91-98], allowing effectively condensing and illuminating light irradiated from a light source relative to a predetermined range with smaller irregularity, as well as attaining miniaturization and a thinner size, paragraphs [16,55,57,68]), and that imaging system telecentric at the first image side (i.e. as emission light sources and the light-condensed illuminated surface is telecentric with rear (and front) optical components 64,62, paragraphs [31,49,91-93,97-99], as it is preferable to increase brightness of light illumination).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the display apparatus with LEDs, and the video apparatus optical system of Hirata to have Lambertian light distribution, and be telecentric at first image side, respectively, according to teachings of Kawamura in order to allow for effective condensing and illumination of light irradiated from light source relative to a predetermined range with smaller irregularity while attaining miniaturization and a thinner size, (see paragraphs [16,55,57,68]), and provide that imaging system is telecentric as it is preferable to increase brightness of light illumination (see paragraphs [31,49,91-93,97-99]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 31 is 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mezouari et al. US 20230207606 A1 also teaches that LED elements exhibit Lambertian light distribution (see Figs. 7-9 and related descriptions).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIN PICHLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4015. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am -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, Thomas K Pham can be reached at (571)272-3689. 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.
/MARIN PICHLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872