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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, as recited in claim 3, the “… the light reflected from the off-axis reflection diffraction optical element travels in a same direction as the traveling direction of the light incident from the light source.” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 4/18/2024, 2/20/2025, and 3/24/2025 were considered by the examiner.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 4,981,332, of record) in view of Wood (US 4,669,810, of record).
Regarding Claim 1, Smith discloses a display apparatus (Fig. 1, display, Col. 2, lines 30-35) comprising:
a light source (Fig. 1, light source 11, Col. 2, lines 30-35);
a compensating diffraction optical element (Fig. 1, compensating hologram 13A, Col. 2, lines 39-45) that is configured to reflect a light incident from the light source (Fig. 1, compensating hologram 13A reflects light from light source 11 at an angle A, Col. 2, lines 39-45); and
a(n) reflection diffraction optical element (Fig. 1, image hologram 15A, Col. 2, lines 40-48) that is configured to reflect a light reflected from the compensating diffraction optical element to an outside of the display apparatus (Fig. 1, image hologram 15A reflects light at an angle of A’, Col. 2, lines 40-48),
wherein a light reflected from the reflection diffraction optical element travels in a direction parallel to a traveling direction of the light incident from the light source (Fig. 1, angle A and angle of A’ are equal, Col. 2, lines 49-60, which is the case when a transversal line passes two parallel lines and the alternate angles are equal).
Smith does not specifically disclose an off-axis reflection diffraction optical element.
However, Wood, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an off-axis reflection diffraction optical element (Col. 4, lines 10-23, Fig. 2, holographic optical element 12), for the purpose of redirecting image light away from the optical axis and towards the eye box of the user.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the display apparatus of Smith with an off-axis reflection diffraction optical element, of Wood, for the purpose of redirecting image light away from the optical axis and towards the eye box of the user.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 4,981,332, of record) in view of Wood (US 4,669,810, of record), further in view of Hua et al. (US 2021/0255464).
Regarding Claim 2, Smith in view of Wood discloses as is set forth above but doesn’t specifically disclose wherein the light source is a liquid crystal display (LCD) panel or an organic light emitting diode (OLED) panel.
However, Hua, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the light source is a liquid crystal display (LCD) panel or an organic light emitting diode (OLED) panel (Fig. 15A, micro display 1520 is an OLED, Paragraph 0058, lines 13-15), for the purpose of providing a wide emission angle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the display apparatus of Smith in view of Wood with the wherein the light source is a liquid crystal display (LCD) panel or an organic light emitting diode (OLED) panel of, Hua, for the purpose of providing a wide emission angle.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 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: with respect to the allowable subject matter, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach of the claimed combination of limitations to warrant a rejection under 35 USC 102 or 103.
Specifically, with respect to claim 3, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach a display apparatus including, as the distinguishing feature(s) in combination with the other limitations, wherein the display apparatus is configured such that the light reflected from the off-axis reflection diffraction optical element travels in a same direction as the traveling direction of the light incident from the light source.
Specifically, with respect to claim 4, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach a display apparatus including, as the distinguishing feature(s) in combination with the other limitations, wherein the display apparatus is configured such that an angle difference of a light incident to the off-axis reflection diffraction optical element is different from an angle difference of the light reflected from the off-axis reflection diffraction optical element, and wherein the compensating diffraction optical element is configured to compensate so that the angle difference of the light reflected from the off-axis reflection diffraction optical element is equal to an angle difference of a light incident to the compensating diffraction optical element.
Specifically, with respect to claim 5, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach a display apparatus including, as the distinguishing feature(s) in combination with the other limitations, wherein the display apparatus is configured such that an angle of the light reflected from the off-axis reflection diffraction optical element differs depending on a wavelength of a light incident to the off-axis reflection diffraction optical element, and wherein the compensating diffraction optical element is configured to compensate so that the angle of the light reflected from the off-axis reflection diffraction optical element is equal to an angle of the light incident to the compensating diffraction optical element.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. McEldowney (US 10,712,576), Smith et al. (US 10,684,476), Smith et al. (US 2016/0109710), Cheng et al. (US 2020/0103654), Hua et al. (US 10,739,578), Hua et al. (US 2018/0045949), Cheng et al. (US 10,416,452), Cheng et al. (US 2016/0085075), Hua et al. (US 9,720,232), Hua et al. (US 2014/0361957), Cheng et al. (US 9,244,277), Cheng et al. (US 2013/0187836), Cheng et al. (US 9,239,453), and Cheng et al. (US 2014/0009845) are cited to show similar displays.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM R ALEXANDER whose telephone number is (571)270-7656. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM- 4:00 PM.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached on (571) 270-1284. 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.
/WILLIAM R ALEXANDER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872