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.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is made of receipt of Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO-1449) filed 08/26/2024. An initialed copy is attached to this Office Action.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-7, 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kuzuhara et al., (Kuzuhara hereafter) (US 2024/0103223 A1).
With respect to Claim 1, Kuzuhara discloses a virtual image display device comprising: a display panel (2, Figure 1) configured to emit image light (L1, Figure 1); a projection optical system (5, Figure 1) configured to collimate the image light (L1, Figure 1) from the display panel (projection optical system 5 collimates the image light ray L1 from the display element 2, ¶[0070]); and a light guide member (4, Figure 1) that includes a light guide plate (light guide 4 includes a body 40 having a plate shape, Figure 1; see also ¶[0039]) configured to guide the image light (L1, Figure 1); an input diffractive optical element (40a, Figure 1) configured to cause the image light (L1, Figure 1) to enter the light guide plate (4, Figure 1), and an output diffractive optical element (40b, Figure 1) configured to cause the image light (L1, Figure 1) to be emitted from the light guide plate (4, Figure 1), wherein the input diffractive optical element (40a, Figure 1) has a diffraction efficiency distribution (Figure 7) having a tendency to cancel unevenness (inherent of diffraction efficiency distribution) the image light (L1, Figure 1) entering the input diffractive optical element (40a, Figure 1).
With respect to Claim 2, Kuzuhara further discloses wherein a design parameter (recessed or protruded part 41a is inclined relative to the thickness direction, Figure 5) of the input diffractive optical element (40a, Figure 1) uniformizes a beam profile (collimates the light, ¶[0070]) of the image light (L1, Figure 1) entering the input diffractive optical element (40a, Figure 1) from the projection optical system (5, Figure 1).
With respect to Claim 5, Kuzuhara further discloses wherein diffraction efficiency (Figure 7) of the input diffractive optical element (40a, Figure 1) is relatively higher in periphery than at center (Figure 7).
With respect to Claim 6, Kuzuhara further discloses wherein the input diffractive optical element (40a, Figure 1) has a concentric (Figure 7) and symmetrical diffraction efficiency distribution (Figure 7).
With respect to Claim 7, Kuzuhara further discloses wherein diffraction efficiency (Figure 7) of the input diffractive optical element (40a, Figure 1) changes with respect to a direction achieving a higher aspect of the display panel (2, Figure 1).
With respect to Claim 9, Kuzuhara further discloses wherein the light guide member (4, Figure 1) includes an expanding diffractive optical element (¶[0069]) configured to expand a pupil (L10, Figure 3, see also ¶[0069]) of the output diffractive optical element (40b, Figure 1) while guiding the image light (L1, Figure 1) guided into the light guide plate (4, Figure 1) from the input diffractive optical element (40a, Figure 1) to the output diffractive optical element (40b, Figure 1).
With respect to Claim 11, an optical unit comprising: a display panel (2, Figure 1) configured to emit image light (L1, Figure 1); a projection optical system (5, Figure 1) configured to collimate the image light (L1, Figure 1) from the display panel (2, Figure 1); and a light guide member (4, Figure 1) that includes a light guide plate configured to guide the image light (L1, Figure 1), an input diffractive optical element (40a, Figure 1) configured to cause the image light (L1, Figure 1) to enter the light guide plate, and an output diffractive optical element configured to cause the image light (L1, Figure 1) to be emitted from the light guide plate, wherein the input diffractive optical element (40a, Figure 1) has a diffraction efficiency distribution (Figure 7) having a tendency to cancel unevenness (inherent of diffraction efficiency distribution) of the image light (L1, Figure 1) entering the input diffractive optical element (40a, Figure 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuzuhara (US 2024/0103223 A1) in view of Vallius (US 10,429,645).
With respect to Claim 3, Kuzuhara teaches the virtual image display device according to claim 1 and the input diffractive optical element (40a, Figure 1).
Kuzuhara fails to teach the input diffractive optical element is one of a slanted type, a binary type, and a blazed type.
Kuzuhara teaches an optical system and Vallius teaches an optical system.
Vallius teaches the input diffractive optical element (DOE functions as a grating, 505, Figure 5; see also column 4, lines 2-9) is one of a slanted type (Figure 8), a binary type, and a blazed type.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Kuzuhara having the virtual image display device with the teachings of Vallius having the input diffractive optical element is one of a slanted type, a binary type, and a blazed type for the purpose of increasing optical resolution, uniformity, and color balance in the display system, column 5, lines 35-39.
With respect to Claim 4, Kuzuhara teaches the virtual image display device according to claim 3, the input diffractive optical element (40a, Figure 1), the beam profile (collimates the light, ¶[0070]) of the image light (L1, Figure 1).
Kuzuhara fails to teach wherein in the input diffractive optical element, an inclination angle, a depth, and a duty ratio of a diffractive structure are changed in accordance with the beam profile of the image light.
Vallius teaches wherein in the input diffractive optical element (DOE functions as a grating, 505, Figure 5; see also column 4, lines 2-9), an inclination angle (column 4, lines 30-35), a depth (modulate various properties of light, column 3, lines 58-62), and a duty ratio (column 3, lines 58-62) of a diffractive structure (Figure 1 shows one or more diffractive optical structures, column 2, lines 29-33) are changed in accordance with the beam profile of the image light (column 3, line 55-column 4, line 11).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Kuzuhara having the virtual image display device with the teachings of Vallius having wherein in the input diffractive optical element, an inclination angle, a depth, and a duty ratio of a diffractive structure are changed in accordance with the beam profile of the image light for the purpose of increasing optical resolution, uniformity, and color balance in the display system, column 5, lines 35-39.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuzuhara (US 2024/0103223 A1) in view of Do et al., (Do hereafter) (US 11,950,448).
With respect to Claim 8, Kuzuhara teaches the virtual image display device according to claim 1 and the display panel (2, Figure 1).
Kuzuhara fails to teach wherein the display panel is an organic light emitting diode display provided with a first order resonance type cavity.
Kuzuhara teaches an optical system and Do teaches an optoelectronic device.
Do teaches wherein the display panel is an organic light emitting diode display provided with a first order resonance type cavity (the total number of cavity modes of TOT is the number of first-order resonance modes of OLED, column 11, lines 60-64).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Kuzuhara having the virtual image display device with the teachings of Do having the display panel an organic light emitting diode display provided with a first order resonance type cavity for the purpose of maximizing light extraction and low power consumption.
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Claim 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kuzuhara (US 2024/0103223 A1) in view of Yonekubo et al., (Yonekubo hereafter) (US 11,550,159).
With respect to Claim 10, Kuzuhara teaches the virtual image display device according to claim 1 and the display panel (2, Figure 1).
Kuzuhara fails to teach a first display panel configured to emit first image light corresponding to the image light; a second display panel configured to emit second image light of a wavelength range different from that of the first image light; a third display panel configured to emit third image light of a wavelength range different from those of the first image light and the second image light; and a cross dichroic prism configured to combine the first image light, the second image light, and the third image light.
Kuzuhara teaches an optical system and Yonekubo teaches a head-mounted display apparatus.
Yonekubo teaches a first display panel (20, Figure 4) configured to emit first image light (blue image light 20a, Figure 4; see also column 4, lines 23-29) corresponding to the image light (11, Figure 3); a second display panel (21, Figure 4) configured to emit second image light (green image light 21a, Figure 4; see also column 4, lines 30-36) of a wavelength range different (green and blue differ) from that of the first image light (blue 20a, Figure 4); a third display panel (22, Figure 4) configured to emit third image light (red image light 22a, Figure 4; see also column 4, lines 37-42) of a wavelength range different (red, blue and green differ) from those of the first image light (blue 20a, Figure 4) and the second image light (green 21a, Figure 4); and a cross dichroic prism (50, Figure 4) configured to combine (column 4, lines 43-67) the first image light (blue 20a, Figure 4), the second image light, and the third image light (22a, Figure 4).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Kuzuhara having the virtual image display device with the teachings of Yonekubo having the a first display panel configured to emit first image light corresponding to the image light; a second display panel configured to emit second image light of a wavelength range different from that of the first image light; a third display panel configured to emit third image light of a wavelength range different from those of the first image light and the second image light; and a cross dichroic prism configured to combine the first image light, the second image light, and the third image light for the purpose of precise wavelength separation for accurate color blending.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMARA Y WASHINGTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3887. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur 730-530 EST.
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 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.
/TYW/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights