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
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/4/2024 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 18 and 20-22 are objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2 of claim 18 and line 3 of claims 20-22, “predetermine” should be changed to --predetermined--. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 4, 6, 8, 16, 18, 20-24, 26, 28, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nemoto (WO 2020184268 A1).
In regard to claims 1, 4, 6, and 8, Nemoto discloses a light guide device (page 3, paragraphs 8-11, Figure 1, “1”) comprising a light guide system (page 7, paragraph 10 – page 8, paragraph 9, Figure 1, “20” & Figure 2, “100”) that guides light emitted from a light source (Figure 1, “10”) device to eyeballs (Figure 1, “3”), wherein the light guide system has an optical element including first (Figure 2, “102”) and second (Figure 2, “101”) diffraction elements that are opposed to each other, light emitted from the light source device and projected to the first diffraction element at a predetermined incident angle is reflected and diffracted at the first diffraction element (page 8, paragraph 2, Figure 2, “102, L1”), the light transmitted through the first diffraction element is reflected and diffracted at the second diffraction element (page 8, paragraphs 3-4, Figure 2, “101, L2”), and the light transmitted through the first diffraction element via the second diffraction element is guided to the eyeballs (page 8, paragraph 5, Figure 2, “102, L5”), the second diffraction element has a lens function (page 8, paragraphs 4-5, Figure 2, re: light L5 is transmitted and focused (i.e. condensing) by diffraction element “101”), but does not specifically disclose wherein the first and second diffraction elements vary in refractive index difference and/or thickness.
However, since said first and second diffraction elements of Nemoto assume different functions, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply provide differing refractive indexes and/or thicknesses to accommodate said differing functions.
Regarding claim 2, modified Nemoto further teaches wherein the first and second diffraction elements vary in a product of a refractive index difference and a thickness since a variation in refractive index or thickness between said diffraction elements would also vary their products.
Regarding claim 16, Nemoto discloses wherein an optical axis of the second diffraction element and a normal line of the first diffraction element are parallel to each other (Figure 2, “101, 102”).
Regarding claim 18, Nemoto discloses wherein light (Figure 2, “L1”) projected to the first diffraction element (Figure 2, “102”) at the predetermined incident angle is light that is emitted from the light source device and is transmitted through the second diffraction element (Figure 2, “101”).
Regarding claim 20, Nemoto discloses wherein the first diffraction element reflects and diffracts, in a regular reflection direction, light projected to the first diffraction element at the predetermined incident angle (page 8, paragraph 2, Figure 2, “102, L1”).
Regarding claim 21, Nemoto discloses wherein the first diffraction element reflects and diffracts, in an incident direction, light projected to the first diffraction element at the predetermined incident angle (page 10, paragraph 4, re: magnitude of the reflection and diffraction angles of diffraction element “102” may be the same).
Regarding claim 22, Nemoto discloses wherein the first diffraction element reflects and diffracts light projected to the first diffraction element at the predetermined incident angle, in a direction different from both of a regular reflection direction and an incident direction (page 9, last paragraph – page 10, paragraph 7, re: diffraction element “102” is designed to reflect and diffract, in a direction shifted from the specular reflection direction, light that is incident at the prescribed angle of incidence).
Regarding claim 23, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for at least one of the first and second diffraction elements to have a curved element surface since Nemoto discloses wherein a diffraction element may be laminated on one surface of a glasses lens, which is well known in the art to be curved (page 31, paragraph 3, Figure 15, “53, 52”).
Regarding claim 24, Nemoto discloses wherein at least one of the first and second diffraction elements is a hologram optical element (page 8, paragraph 11).
Regarding claims 26 and 28, Nemoto discloses a head-mounted display device comprising: said light guide device and the light source device (page 27, paragraph 7).
Regarding claim 29, Nemoto discloses a display system comprising: said display device and a controller that controls the display device (page 27, paragraph 7).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5, 7, 9, 10-15, 17, 19, 25, and 27 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the claimed features as presented in claims 3 and 12-15: a light guide device as claimed, specifically wherein a first product as a product of a refractive index difference and a thickness of the first diffraction element is larger than a second product as a product of a refractive index difference and a thickness of the second diffraction element.
The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the claimed features as presented in claim 5: a light guide device as claimed, specifically wherein the first diffraction element has a larger refractive index difference than the second diffraction element.
The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the claimed features as presented in claim 7: a light guide device as claimed, specifically wherein the second diffraction element has a larger thickness than the first diffraction element.
The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the claimed features as presented in claim 9: a light guide device as claimed, specifically wherein the first diffraction element has a larger refractive index difference than the second diffraction element, and the second diffraction element has a larger thickness than the first diffraction element.
The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the claimed features as presented in claim 10: a light guide device as claimed, specifically wherein the first and second diffraction elements are identical in thickness, and the first diffraction element has a larger refractive index difference than the second diffraction element.
The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the claimed features as presented in claim 11: a light guide device as claimed, specifically wherein the first and second diffraction elements are identical in refractive index difference, and the second diffraction element has a larger thickness than the first diffraction element.
The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the claimed features as presented in claim 17: a light guide device as claimed, specifically wherein an optical axis of the second diffraction element and a normal line of the first diffraction element are non- parallel.
The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the claimed features as presented in claim 19: a light guide device as claimed, specifically wherein the light guide system further includes a light guide plate that is at least partially disposed between the first and second diffraction elements and guides light from the light source device, and light projected to the first diffraction element at the predetermine incident angle is light that is emitted from the light source device and is guided by the light guide plate.
The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the claimed features as presented in claim 27: a light guide device as claimed, specifically wherein the light source device and the light guide device are integrally provided.
The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the claimed features as presented in claim 25: a light guide device as claimed, specifically wherein the optical element is attached to or embedded into the eyeball.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-2324. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday, 9:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached at (571) 270-1284. 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.
/WILLIAM CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 June 25, 2026
Prosecution Insights