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
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of Species IIB6 (figures 3 and 15; claims 1-16) in the reply filed on 04/29/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the requirement to elected one of Species 1 to 8 should be required only if Species D is elected.
This is not found persuasive because figures 9 and 11-17 can be in operation with a light control film that implements the light control device of figures 1, 3, 7-8. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-2, 8, 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Asami et al. (WO 2019/177027).
Regarding claim 1, Asami et al. (figure 4) discloses a display system comprising:
a display panel (310);
a first reflector (500); and
a second reflector (270); wherein:
the display panel provides first image light representative of a displayed image to the first reflector and provides second image light representative of at least a portion of the displayed image to the second reflector without first being reflected by the first reflector (P or S; some of the light rays may become stray lights);
the first reflector reflects the first image light from the display panel toward the second reflector (500 and 270; figure 4);
the second reflector reflects the first image light from the first reflector toward an eyepiece (270; figure 4); and
the second reflector is positioned relative to the second image light and a polarization direction of the second image light incident on the second reflector has a first orientation such that reflectance of a portion of the second image light from the second reflector is approximately zero (S and P polarized light; figure 4).
The limitation, “the display panel provides first image light representative of a displayed image to the first reflector and provides second image light representative of at least a portion of the displayed image to the second reflector without first being reflected by the first reflector; the first reflector reflects the first image light from the display panel toward the second reflector; the second reflector reflects the first image light from the first reflector toward an eyepiece; a polarization direction of the second image light incident on the second reflector has a first orientation such that reflectance of a portion of the second image light from the second reflector is approximately zero” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Sung et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 2, Asami et al. (figure 4) discloses wherein the second reflector is a silicon mirror (The first intermediate film 220 and the second intermediate film 240 function as a pressure-sensitive adhesive or adhesive for maintaining the adhesion between the first base 210 and the second base 250 and the optical layer 230 and the material which has adhesiveness excellent in rework property is preferable, for example, a silicone adhesive or an acrylic adhesive etc. are preferable; see at least page 4, the last paragraph and page 5, 4h paragraph).
Regarding claim 8, Asami et al. (figure 4) discloses wherein the second reflector is positioned relative to the second image light such that at least a portion of the second image light is incident on the second reflector at the Brewster angle of the second reflector (see at least page 7, 5th to 7th paragraphs).
Regarding claim 11, Asami et al. (figure 4) discloses wherein the second image light provided by the display panel is linearly polarized (S or P).
Regarding claim 12, Asami et al. (figure 4) implicitly discloses a polarizer that linearly polarizes the second image light provided by the display panel prior to the second image light reaching the second reflector (An image projection device (100) according to the present invention comprises: a display (300) projecting display light representing a display image in a state where the display light is converted into S polarized light or P polarized light; see at least abstract).
Regarding claim 13, Asami et al. (figure 4) implicitly discloses a polarization rotator that rotates the polarization direction of the second image light from a second orientation to the first orientation (The display (300) includes a polarization direction converting unit capable of freely switching between the S polarized light and the P polarized light; see at least abstract).
Regarding claim 14, Asami et al. (figure 4) implicitly discloses wherein the display panel modulates source light emitted from a backlight to provide the first image light (n such a display 310, S-polarized light or P-polarized light projected from the display 310 is preset by a light source, or in addition to the light source; see at least page 6, last paragraph).
The limitation, “wherein the display panel modulates source light emitted from a backlight to provide the first image light” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Sung et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 15, Asami et al. (figure 4) implicitly discloses a light control device positioned behind the display panel and configured to control a distribution angle of the first image light and the second image light provided by the display panel (n such a display 310, S-polarized light or P-polarized light projected from the display 310 is preset by a light source, or in addition to the light source; see at least page 6, last paragraph).
Regarding claim 16, Asami et al. (figure 4) implicitly discloses the backlight (n such a display 310, S-polarized light or P-polarized light projected from the display 310 is preset by a light source, or in addition to the light source; see at least page 6, last paragraph).
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 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.
Claims 3-7, 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asami et al. (WO 2019/177027).
Regarding claim 3, Asami et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the second reflector is positioned relative to the second image light such that an angle of incidence of the second image light on the second reflector ranges from about 63° to about 83°. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second reflector being positioned relative to the second image light such that an angle of incidence of the second image light on the second reflector ranges from about 63° to about 83°, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Regarding claim 4, Asami et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the second reflector is positioned relative to the second image light such that an angle of incidence of the second image light on the second reflector ranges from about 72° to about 80°. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second reflector being positioned relative to the second image light such that an angle of incidence of the second image light on the second reflector ranges from about 72° to about 80°, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Regarding claim 5, Asami et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the second reflector is positioned relative to the second image light such that an angle of incidence of the second image light on the second reflector ranges from about 75° to about 78°. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second reflector being positioned relative to the second image light such that an angle of incidence of the second image light on the second reflector ranges from about 75° to about 78°, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Regarding claim 6, Asami et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the second reflector is positioned relative to the first image light from the first reflector such that an angle of incidence of the first image light from the first reflector on the second reflector is greater than about 86°. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second reflector being positioned relative to the first image light from the first reflector such that an angle of incidence of the first image light from the first reflector on the second reflector is greater than about 86°, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Regarding claim 7, Asami et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the second reflector is positioned relative to the first image light from the first reflector such that a minimum reflectance of the first image light reflected from the second reflector is greater than about 40%. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second reflector being positioned relative to the first image light from the first reflector such that a minimum reflectance of the first image light reflected from the second reflector is greater than about 40%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Regarding claim 9, Asami et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the second reflector is positioned relative to the second image light such that a maximum reflectance of the second image light reflected from the second reflector is less than about 20%. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second reflector being positioned relative to the second image light such that a maximum reflectance of the second image light reflected from the second reflector is less than about 20%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Regarding claim 10, Asami et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the second reflector is positioned relative to the second image light such that a maximum reflectance of the second image light reflected from the second reflector is less than about 10%. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second reflector being positioned relative to the second image light such that a maximum reflectance of the second image light reflected from the second reflector is less than about 10%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1428. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 8:00 AM -6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Carruth, can be reached at 571-272-9791. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAUREN NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights