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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A, B and C in the reply filed on June 1, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that applicant has admitted that species A and B are obvious variation of each other.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 6, and 8-12, and 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on June 1, 2026.
Claims 1-5, 7, and 13 remain pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5, 7 and 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The phrase “a modulation device overlapping the display device and the optical modulation element” recited in claim 1 is confusing and indefinite since it is not clear what considered to be this modulation device is capable of overlapping both the display device and the optical modulation element. The scopes of the claims are therefore unclear.
The mathematical expression recited in claim 3 is confusing and indefinite, since the parameters recited in the expression are confusing and cannot be objectively defined. Specifically, it is not clear how to define the “optical efficiency of the optical modulation element” since it is not clear the efficiency is referred to what property of the optical modulation element. Furthermore, it is not clear how to determine “center brightness of the display device” and it is not clear what is the specific unit is used to describe the brightness. As understand in physics, a brightness or luminance is defined as light output respect to an area, so certain units are needed to describe the brightness. For different unit used, the value for brightness will be different and therefore the logarithmic value will be different. Also, it is not clear how to define the “optical distance maintenance rate of the display device”. It is not clear what unit is being used to measure the maintenance rate and different unit will give different numerical value for the rate and changes the logarithmic value.
The scopes of the claim therefore is not clear and indefinite.
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) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication by Maekawa (US 2010/0214394 A1) in view of the US patent application publication by Weindorf (US 2020/0218044 A1).
Maekawa teaches, with regard to claim 1, an image display device that is comprised of a display surface (31, Figure 7), wherein the display surface has a normal direction, a dihedral corner reflector array (2A) serves as the optical modulation element disposed on the display device and an actuator means (4) serves as the modulation device wherein the modulation device or the actuator means moves the display surface to a first location at a first state that would project a first image to a first image position through the modulation element and the modulation device moves the display surface to a second location at a second state that would project a second image to second image position through the modulation element.
This reference has met all the limitations of the claims. It however does not teach explicitly that an angle between the optical modulation element or the dihedral corner reflector array and the display surface is greater than 20 degrees and less than 70 degrees.
Weindorf in the same field of endeavor teaches a display system wherein a dihedral corner reflector (28, Figure 1, 154, Figure 2 or 232, Figure 3) is making an angle about 45 degrees, (please see paragraph [0016]) that is between 20 degrees and 70 degrees. It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Weindorf to make the modulation element to make a 45 degrees with respect to the display surface for the benefit of allowing the projected image is directed to desired viewing location.
Furthermore, as demonstrated by Weindorf, while the display surface located at a first location would project a first image to a first image position (248, Figure 3) with a minimum distance from the first image position to the optical modulation element or the dihedral corner reflector (232) is different from a minimum distance from the second imaging position (250) to the optical modulation element or dihedral corner reflector, (232).
With regard to the feature “a modulation device overlapping the display device and the optical modulation element” recited in claim 1, this feature is rejected under 35 USC 112, second paragraph, for the reasons set forth above. This feature can only be examined in the broadest interpretation. As shown in Figure 7 of Maekawa, the orthogonal projections of the optical modulation element (2A) and display device overlap with the modulation device or the actuator means (4).
With regard to claim 2, Maekawa teaches that the modulation device or the actuator means (4) comprise a moving device, (please see paragraph [0050]), and the display device (31, Figure 7) is disposed between the optical modulation element (2A) and the modulation device or actuator means (4).
With regard to claim 3, this claim is under 35 USC 112, second paragraph for the reasons set forth above. The scopes of claim are unclear and the claim can only be examined in broadest interpretation. It is within general level skilled in the art to design the minimum distance between the display device (31) and the modulation element (2A) to have a desired distance for the benefit of allowing the projected image to be located at desired viewing location.
With regard to claim 4, Maekawa teaches that the display device is able to move along the normal direction, (please see Figure 7). This reference does not teach explicitly that the moving frequency of the display device is greater than 60 Hz, such modification would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to make the movement of the display device with a desired moving frequency to achiever desired image viewing properties.
With regard to claim 5, Maekawa teaches that the actuator means or the modulation device may comprise springs which is an elastic material, (please see paragraph [0050]).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maekawa and Weindorf as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US patent application publication by Nakao (US 2015/0279283 A1).
The image display device taught by Maekawa in combination with the teachings of Weindorf as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claim.
With regard to claim 13, both Maekawa and Weindorf teaches that a minimum distance from the first image position to the optical modulation element or the dihedral corner reflector is defined and a minimum distance between the display surface and the optical modulation element or the dihedral corner reflector is defined. These references do not teach explicitly that the two minimum distances are the same. Nakao in the same field of endeavor teaches an image display apparatus with display device (40, Figure 1 or 31, Figure 10) and a dihedral corner reflector (13, please see paragraph [0049]) wherein the minimum distance between the display device and the dihedral corner reflector (serves as the optical modulation element) and the minimum distance between the position of the real image (100) and the optical modulation element are the same, (please see Figure 10 and paragraph [0058]). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Nakao to make the minimum distances be the same to design the projected image be located at the desired location.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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: of the prior art references considered, none has disclosed an image display device, that is comprised of a display device having a display surface, wherein the display surface has a normal direction; an optical modulation element disposed on the display device, wherein an angle is between the optical modulation element and the display surface of the display device, and the angle is greater than or equal to 20 degrees and less than or equal to 70 degrees; and a modulation device wherein when the modulation device is in a first state, the display device projects a first image at a first imaging position through the optical modulation element, when the modulation device is in a second state, the display device projects a second image at a second imaging position through the optical modulation element, and a minimum distance from the first imaging position to the optical modulation element is different from a minimum distance from the second imaging position to the optical modulation element. The modulation device comprises a moving device wherein the modulation device further comprises a carrier and at least one transmission element, the at least one transmission element comprises a pulley and a transmission rope, and the moving device moves the carrier through the transmission rope.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US patent application publication by Maekawa (US 2012/0092766 A1) teaches a display device that is comprised of an object (2, Figure 11) a dihedral corner reflector (6) and a guide translation mechanism, (RP, please see Figure 11) for moving the object to different locations, to provide different operation states. US patent application publication by Tanaka et al (US 2018/0275414 A1) teaches a display device that is comprised of a display surface (26A, Figure 12), an imaging optical element (6) and a driver, (50 please see Figure 12) for moving the display surface to different locations, to provide different operation states.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUDREY Y CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2309. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 9:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Stephone B Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
AUDREY Y. CHANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/AUDREY Y CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights