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 .
Remark
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed on August 31, 2026, which has been entered into the file.
By this amendment, the applicant has amended claim 1, has canceled claims 7-9 and has newly added claims 11-13.
Claims 1-6, and 10-13 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.
Claim 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.
Claim 13 has newly been added to recite the phrase “the holographic light guide” that is confusing and indefinite since it lacks proper antecedent basis from its based claim.
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) 1-2, 5-6, 10 and newly added claims 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent issued to Sato et al (PN. 12,222,553) in view of the US patent application publication by Kleindienst et al (US 2022/0146752 A1).
Claim 1 has been amended and claims 11-12 have been newly added to necessitate new grounds of rejection.
Sato et al teaches, with regard to claim 1, an image display device that is comprised of a light guide plate (16, Figures 1-3) and a display element (12, Figure 3) serves as the display light generator configured to cause a plurality of types of display light, such as unpolarized light or circularly polarized light, (please see column 9, lines 1-14). The unpolarized light may comprise different components of light with different polarization states or different optical characteristics. The display light is incident one an incident region (18) of the light guide plate. The light guide plate further includes a first diffraction element (24a) serves as the first emission region for causing a first type, such as right circularly polarized light, (please see column 15, lines 42-47), of the display light to form an image and a second diffraction element (24b) serves as the second emission region for causing a second type, such as left circularly polarized light, of the display light to form an image.
Sato et al teaches that the image display device further includes diffraction gratings (20a and 20b) serves a distribution region that depends on the optical characteristic, such that a diffraction grating (20a) for reflecting and guiding right circularly polarized light incident from the incident region to the first emission region and a diffraction grating (20b) for reflecting and guiding left circularly polarized light incident from the incident region to the second emission region, respectively.
This reference has met all the limitations of the claims. Claim 1 has been amended to include the phrase “a second emission region disposed at a position coplanar with and spaced apart from the first emission region”.
Sato et al teaches that the first emission region and the second emission region (24a and 24b, Figure 3) are stacked together. It however does not teach explicitly that they may also be disposed alternatively to be planar. Kleindienst et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a functionalized waveguide that is comprised of a plurality of output coupling regions (51 to 55, please see Figures 10, 16 and 44A-44E) that serves as the plurality of emission regions wherein the plurality of output coupling regions may either be arranged coplanar with spacing between one another, (please see Figures 10, 16 and 44A-44E) or they may be placed in stacking fashion, (please see paragraph [0041]). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Kleindienst et al to modify the image display device of Sato et al to alternatively make the first and second emission regions to be disposed coplanar with and spaced apart from each other as an alternative design.
With regard to claim 2, Sato et al teaches that the optical characteristic is a polarization direction of the display light, (please see column 15). The first type of the display light has a first polarization direction such as right circularly polarization direction and the second type of the display light has a second polarization direction such as left circularly polarization direction, (please see column 15, lines 26-53).
With regard to claim 5, it is implicitly true that the diffraction grating or the hologram of distribution region for reflecting and guiding the light of the first polarized light has to have the highest efficiency in the first polarization direction and to have a lowest efficiency in the second polarization direction.
With regard to claim 6, the hologram diffraction grating (24a) for the first emission region is configured to have diffraction efficiency in the first polarization direction is the highest and the hologram diffraction grating (24b) for the second emission region is configured to have diffraction efficiency in the second polarization direction is highest.
With regard to claim 10, Sato et al reference does not teach explicitly that the first emission region and the second emission region case the first type of the display light and the second type of the display light to form images at positions different from each other. However, it is within general level skilled in the art to modify the holographic diffraction grating for the emission regions to make the images formed at different positions for the benefit of providing different image properties.
With regard to newly added claim 11, Kleindienst et al teaches that the distance at which the first emission region causes the display light to form an image is different from a distance at which the second emission region causes the display light to form an image, (please see Figures 44A to 44E).
With regard to newly added claim 12, it is implicitly true that the display element (12) taught by Sato comprise an image control circuit for controlling the display light generator for generating the image information for display. It is implicitly true that the period for the display light to be emitted from the first emission region is different from a period during which the display light is emitted from the second emission region for they are of different type of the display light.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al and Kleindienst et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of the US patent application publication by Jamali et al (US 2023/0194873 A1).
The image display device taught by Sato et al in combination with the teachings of Kleindienst et al as described in claim 1 has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claims 3 and 4, Sato et al teaches the image display light generator is capable to generate image light with both left and right circularly polarized lights. This reference however does not teach explicitly to include an optical element for switching the polarization direction. Jamali et al in the same field of endeavor teaches an image display device that is comprised of a polarization switching element that is comprised of a half-wave plate being mounted on a rotation stage, (please see paragraph [0052]) to switch polarization direction of the display light. It is known in the art that the half-wave plate may change the handiness of the circular polarization direction. It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Jamali et al to include an optical element which is a half wave plate for benefit of switching the polarization direction between the first polarization direction and the second polarization direction to provide the display light from the display light generator with both right and left circular polarized lights.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al and Kleindienst et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of the US patent issued to Levola (PN. 8,320,032).
Claim 13 has been newly added to necessitate the new ground of rejection.
The image display device taught by Sato et al in combination with the teachings of Kleindienst et al as described in claim 1 has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claim 13, Sato et al teaches that the light guide comprises the diffraction elements (20a and 20b, Figure 2) also serves as propagation regions that propagates light from the first diffraction element (18). The first diffraction element (18) that serves both as the incident region and the distribution region that configured to guide the first type of the display light and the second type of the display light. This reference does not teach explicitly that the incident region and the distribution region are of separated regions. Levola in the same field of endeavor teaches a virtual display device that is comprised of an input grating (10, Figure 8a) and a separate distribution grating (21a and 22a) for guiding the display light from the input grating to the propagation gratings (22b and 21b). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to make the incident region and the distribution region of Sato et al to be of different regions for the benefit of allowing a different design for the display device.
Sato et al reference does not teach explicitly that the light guide plate is a hologram light guide plate. But this phrase is rejected under 35 USC 112, second paragraph, for the reasons set forth above. This phrase is therefore being examined in the interpretation of “a light guide plate comprises holographic optical element”. Sato et al teaches that the diffraction gratings, such as diffraction gratings in the incident regions and the emission regions may comprise hologram diffraction element, (please see column 29, lines 19-25). This means the light guide plate disclosed by Sato et al is also a hologram light guide plate. Furthermore, Sato et al teaches that the distribution regions comprise diffraction elements (20a and 20b, please see column 15, lines 48-53). Although this reference does not teach explicitly that the diffraction elements are hologram, such modification would have been obvious to one skilled in the art since hologram is a well-known type of the diffraction elements. To use a hologram as the diffraction elements of the distribution region is obvious modification by one skilled in the art for the benefit of use art well known hologram to achieve same function as the diffraction element.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 31, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The newly amended claims have been fully considered and rejected for the reasons set forth above.
Applicant’s arguments are mainly drawn to the newly amended and added claims that have been fully addressed in the reasons for rejection set forth above.
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 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