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 .
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, 4, 11, 12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2019/0227321; hereinafter Lee) in view of Nishimura et al. (US2020/0355847; hereinafter Nishimura).
Regarding claim 1:
Lee discloses an optical device (see Fig. 17) comprising:
a light guide plate having a surface on which a diffraction element is disposed (see Fig. 17, grating coupler layer 1720); and
an optical filter that includes an anisotropic light absorbing layer (see Fig. 17, angular- selective transmissive layer 1740; also see paragraph [0006]),
wherein an angle between an absorption axis of the anisotropic light absorbing layer and a normal direction of a main surface of the anisotropic light absorbing layer is 0° to 45° (see Fig. 17; light 1770 is being absorbed by the angular-selective transmissive layer 1740; the angle between the surface of the angular-selective transmissive layer 1740 and the light incident angle of light 1770 is within the range of 0° to 45°).
Lee does not disclose the anisotropic light absorbing layer includes a dichroic colorant.
In the same field of endeavor, Nishimura discloses an optical device (see Fig. 1) comprising:
an optical filter that includes an anisotropic light absorbing layer (see Fig. 1; optical film 12),
wherein the anisotropic light absorbing layer includes a dichroic colorant (see paragraphs [0009], [0012], and table in [0269]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Lee and Nishimura such that the anisotropic light absorbing layer includes a dichroic colorant. The combination would have yielded a predictable result of improving the display quality by reducing the coloring of the reflected light.
Regarding claim 4:
Lee and Nishimura disclose all the features in claim 1. Lee further discloses the optical device, wherein two or more diffraction elements are disposed on the light guide plate (see Fig. 4, elements 350, 360 and 365 are diffraction elements), and
the optical filter is provided to cover at least a diffraction element (see Fig. 17; the angular-selective transmissive layer 1740 is covering the entire waveguide) where an angle between a slit direction and a horizontal direction is smallest among the diffraction elements (see Fig. 17; based on the broadest interpretation, this is met by the grating layers in the waveguide 1720/1710 since "smallest among the diffraction elements" is not defined).
Regarding claim 11:
Lee and Nishimura disclose all the features in claim 1. Lee further discloses the optical device, wherein the optical filter is disposed on an opposite observation surface side of the light guide plate (see Fig. 17; layer 1740 is disposed on the opposite side of the observation surface side).
Regarding claim 12:
Lee and Nishimura disclose all the features in claim 1. Lee further discloses the optical device, wherein the optical filter is disposed on both surfaces of the light guide plate (see Fig. 18; layer 1840 and layer 1820/1850 are interpreted as optical filter).
Regarding claim 14:
Lee and Nishimura disclose all the features in claim 1. Lee further discloses a head-mounted display (see Figs. 1-4) comprising: the optical device according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above); and an image display element (see Fig. 4; source assembly 310).
Claim(s) 2, 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in Nishimura as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamada et al. (WO2021/177280; hereinafter Yamada).
Regarding claim 2:
Lee and Nishimura disclose all the features in claim 1. However, Lee and Nishimura do not disclose the optical device, wherein the optical filter further includes a polarizer having an absorption axis in a main surface.
In the same field of endeavor, Yamada discloses an optical device, wherein the optical filter further includes a polarizer having an absorption axis in a main surface (see Fig. 7A and paragraph [0023]; polarizer 20 has an absorption axis in the in plane direction of the film).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the optical device of Lee and Nishimura such that the optical filter further includes a polarizer having an absorption axis in a main surface as taught by Yamada. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this because certain polarized light can be reflected; hence, improve the viewing characteristic of the display device.
Regarding claim 5:
Lee, Nishimura, and Yamada disclose all the features in claim 2. Yamada further discloses the optical device,
wherein the optical filter includes a retardation layer between the anisotropic light absorbing layer and the polarizer (see Fig. 7A; retardation layer 300).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Lee and Yamada such that the optical filter includes a retardation layer between the anisotropic light absorbing layer and polarizer. The combination would have yielded a predictable result of the ability to control the viewing angle of the optical device by controlling the tilt angle of the retardation layer.
Regarding claim 15:
Lee, Nishimura and Yamada disclose all the features in claim 2. Lee further discloses the optical device, wherein two or more diffraction elements are disposed on the light guide plate (see Fig. 4; coupling element 350, directing element 360, and decoupling element 365 are diffraction elements), and
the optical filter is provided to cover at least a diffraction element where an angle between a slit direction and a horizontal direction is smallest among the diffraction elements (see Fig. 17; based on the broadest interpretation, this is met by the grating layers in the waveguide 1720/1710 since "smallest among the diffraction elements" is not defined).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Nishimura as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of (JP2021-508093; Applicant Admitted Prior Art; hereinafter AAPA).
Regarding claim 8:
Lee and Nishimura disclose all the features in claim 1. Lee and Nishimura do not disclose the optical device, wherein on a surface of the light guide plate, an incidence diffraction element for allowing light to be incident into the light guide plate, an intermediate diffraction element that deflects a light guide direction of light diffracted by the incidence diffraction element, and an emission diffraction element that emits light diffracted by the intermediate diffraction element from the light guide plate are disposed.
In the same field of endeavor, AAPA discloses an optical device,
wherein on a surface of the light guide plate, an incidence diffraction element for allowing light to be incident into the light guide plate, an intermediate diffraction element that deflects a light guide direction of light diffracted by the incidence diffraction element, and an emission diffraction element that emits light diffracted by the intermediate diffraction element from the light guide plate are disposed (see Fig. 1a; optical device 10 includes incidence diffraction element 12, an intermediate diffraction element 13, and a emission diffraction element 14 on a surface of the optical device 10).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Lee, Nishimura and AAPA such that on a surface of the light guide plate, an incidence diffraction element for allowing light to be incident into the light guide plate, an intermediate diffraction element that deflects a light guide direction of light diffracted by the incidence diffraction element, and an emission diffraction element that emits light diffracted by the intermediate diffraction element from the light guide plate are disposed. The combination would have yielded a predictable result of effectively displaying the image.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 6-7, 9-10, 13 and 16-20 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.
See last Office Action for detail of the allowable subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 LIXI CHOW SIMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-7571. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00am-3:00pm.
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, William Boddie can be reached at 517-272-0666. 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.
/LIXI C SIMPSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2625
Prosecution Insights