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 .
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kanetoku (WO 2019225572 A1, See Attached Espacenet Machine Translation).
Re Claim 1, Kanetoku discloses on Fig. 1 and 3, a Fresnel lens (fresnel lens 24) [Par 27] that controls a path of light between a light source (sources 21) [Par 11-14] and a display element (Windshield of light transmitting material 2)[Par 10], wherein a plurality of oval grooves (emission surface 24o has concentric ellipses grooves 24b) [Par 27-29] is formed concentrically on one surface of the Fresnel lens (See Fig. 3 and concentric grooves of 24a on fresnel lens 24) [Par 27], wherein the Fresnel lens (fresnel lens 24) [Par 27] has a first curvature in a first direction (Fig. 3a: minor axis b) [Par 29] and a second curvature in a second direction (Fig. 3a: major axis a) [Par 29], wherein the first direction (Fig. 3a: minor axis b) [Par 29] and the second direction (Fig. 3a: major axis a) [Par 29]are perpendicular to each other (See Fig. 3a: where axis a and b are perpendicular)[Par 29], and wherein the first and second curvatures are different (Fig. 3a-3b: “…groove pitch p between adjacent ellipses that is different in the direction of the minor axis b and the direction of the major axis a of the ellipse”)[Par 29].
Re Claim 2, Kanetoku discloses, the Fresnel lens (fresnel lens 24) [Par 27] of claim 1, and Kanetoku further discloses on Fig. 3a, wherein the first direction (Fig. 3a: minor axis b) [Par 29] is a left and right direction (See Fig. 3b where axis b is the z-axis) [Par 29], and wherein the second direction (Fig. 3a: major axis a) [Par 29] is an up and down direction (See Fig. 3b: where axis a is the y direction) [Par 29].
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanetoku in view of Bierhuizen (US 20180136460 A1).
Re Claim 3, Kanetoku discloses, the Fresnel lens (fresnel lens 24) [Par 27] of claim 1.
But Kanetoku does not explicitly disclose, wherein the Fresnel lens is a plate-shaped anamorphic Fresnel lens.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Bierhuizen teaches, on Fig. 12-13, that it is desirable in Fresnel lenses to include wherein, the Fresnel lens is a plate-shaped anamorphic Fresnel lens (lens body 1200 is an anomorphic Fresnel lens) [Par 18 and 34].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Kanetoku with Bierhuizen, in order to provide lower distortion, as taught by Bierhuizen [Par 34].
Claim(s) 4-5, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanetoku in view of Boyd (US 20040136172 A1).
Re Claim 4, Kanetoku discloses on Fig. 1 and 3, an image generation device (Fig. 1: heads up display device 10) having a Fresnel lens (fresnel lens 24) [Par 27], comprising: a light source (sources 21) [Par 11-14]; a display element (Windshield of light transmitting material 2)[Par 10] spaced apart from the light source (sources 21) [Par 11-14]; a plurality of lenses (Fig. 1: lenses 22, 23, and 24) [Par 12-13] disposed between the light source (sources 21) [Par 11-14] and the display element (Windshield of light transmitting material 2)[Par 10];, wherein the plurality of lenses (Fig. 1: lenses 22, 23, and 24) [Par 12-13] comprises a Fresnel lens (fresnel lens 24) [Par 27] with a plurality of oval grooves (emission surface 24o has concetric ellipses grooves 24b) [Par 27-29] formed concentrically on one surface, and has a first curvature in a first direction (Fig. 3a: minor axis b) [Par 29] and a second curvature in a second direction (Fig. 3a: major axis a) [Par 29] wherein the first direction (Fig. 3a: minor axis b) [Par 29] and the second direction (Fig. 3a: major axis a) [Par 29] are perpendicular to each other, and wherein the first and second curvatures are different (Fig. 3a-3b: “…groove pitch p between adjacent ellipses that is different in the direction of the minor axis b and the direction of the major axis a of the ellipse”)[Par 29].
But Kanetoku does not explicitly disclose, a prism sheet disposed between the plurality of lenses and the display element.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Boyd teaches, on Fig. 1 and 4, that it is desirable in Fresnel lens systems to include, a prism sheet (Fig. 4: prismatic film 52) [Par 34] disposed between the plurality of lenses (Fresnel lens 46 and diffuser (lens 23 diffuses light) [Par 25] film 50) [Par 32-37] and the display element (See Fig. 1: display element 14) [Par 14].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Kanetoku with Boyd, in order to reflect and recycle off angle light, as taught by Boyd [Par 34].
Re Claim 5, Kanetoku in view of Boyd obviates, the Fresnel lens (fresnel lens 24) [Par 27] of claim 4, and Kanetoku further discloses on Fig. 3a, wherein the first direction (Fig. 3a: minor axis b) [Par 29] is a left and right direction (See Fig. 3b where axis b is the z-axis) [Par 29], and wherein the second direction (Fig. 3a: major axis a) [Par 29] is an up and down direction (See Fig. 3b: where axis a is the y direction) [Par 29].
Re Claim 10, Kanetoku in view of Boyd, the image generation device having a Fresnel lens of claim 4, and Kanetoku further teaches on Fig. 1, a diffuser (lens 23 diffuses light) [Par 25] disposed on the image side of the display element (windshield 2), and Boyd teaches on Fig. 4, a prism sheet (prismatic film 52) [Par 34].
But Kanetoku in view of Boyd does not explicitly teach wherein, the diffuser is disposed between the prism sheet and the display element.
However, since Kanetoku does teach controlling the placement of the diffuser on the image side of a display element, amongst a multi-lens system, and Boyd teaches controlling the placement of a prismatic sheet, it is known in the prior art before the filing date of the invention to control and arrange the location of both a prismatic sheet and a diffuser. Thus, one of ordinary skill would have been capable of simply rearranging these components such that, the diffuser is disposed between the prism sheet and the display element, especially because between Kanetoku and Boyd the rearrangement of Fresnel lens lens systems is generally known (see the different arrangements in Fig. 1 of Kanetoku and Fig. 4 of Boyd). Further one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to control the light diffusion angle only after the light is already conditioned, as taught by Kanetoku [Par 25].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Kanetoku, Boyd, such that, the diffuser is disposed between the prism sheet and the display element, in order to control the light diffusion angle only after the light is already conditioned, as taught by Kanetoku [Par 25].
Re Claim 11, Kanetoku in view of Boyd obviates, the image generation device having a Fresnel lens of claim 10, and Kanetoku further teaches, comprising: a polarizer (polarizing plate 25b) [Par 15] disposed between a prism (liquid crystal cell 25a) [Par 15] and the diffuser (lens 23) [Par 12], and Boyd teaches a prism sheet (prismatic film 52) [Par 34].
But Kanetoku in view of Boyd does not explicitly teach, the polarizer disposed between the prism sheet and the diffuser.
However, since Kanetoku does teach controlling the placement of a polarizer between a prism and a diffuser and Boyd teaches controlling the placement of a prismatic sheet, it is known in the prior art before the filing date of the invention to control and arrange the location of both a prismatic sheet and a polarizer. Thus, one of ordinary skill would have been capable of simply replacing, or adding in addition to, the prism (liquid crystal cell) of Kanetoku, a prism sheet as taught by Boyd, especially because between Kanetoku and Boyd the rearrangement of Fresnel lens lens systems is generally known (see the different arrangements between Fig. 1 of Kanetoku and Fig. 4 of Boyd). Further one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add a prism sheet in this location in order to polarize the light before, reflecting and recycling off angle light in the prism sheet, as taught by Boyd [Par 34].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Kanetoku in view of Boyd, such that, the polarizer disposed between the prism sheet and the diffuser, in order to control the light diffusion angle only after the light is already conditioned, as taught by Kanetoku [Par 25].
Re claim 12, Kanetoku in view of Boyd obviates, the image generation device having a Fresnel lens of claim 11, and Kanetoku further teaches on Fig. 1, wherein a prism (liquid crystal cell 25a)[Par 15] is coupled to the polarizer (polarizing plate 25c)[Par 12], and Boyd teaches on Fig. 4, wherein the prism is specifically a prism sheet (prismatic film 52).
One of ordinary skill, would be motivated to combine Kanetoku and Boyd for the same reasons as those cited in claims 4 and 11 above.
Re Claim 13, Kanetoku in view of Boyd obviates, the image generation device having a Fresnel lens of claim 11, and Boyd further teaches on Fig. 4, wherein a polarizer (polarizer 48) is a reflection polarizer (polarizer 48 is a reflection polarizer) [Par 33].
One of ordinary skill, would be motivated to combine Kanetoku and Boyd for the same reasons as those cited in claims 4 and 11 above.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanetoku in view of Boyd as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Bierhuizen.
Re Claim 6, Kanetoku in view of Boyd obviates, the Fresnel lens (fresnel lens 24) [Par 27] of claim 4.
But Kanetoku in view of Boyd does not explicitly disclose, wherein the Fresnel lens is a plate-shaped anamorphic Fresnel lens.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Bierhuizen teaches, on Fig. 12-13, that it is desirable in Fresnel lenses to include wherein, the Fresnel lens is a plate-shaped anamorphic Fresnel lens (lens body 1200 is an anomorphic Fresnel lens) [Par 18 and 34].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Kanetoku in view of Boyd with Bierhuizen, in order to provide lower distortion, as taught by Bierhuizen [Par 34].
Claim(s) 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanetoku in view of Boyd as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Koyama (US 20200004030 A1).
Re Claim 7, Kanetoku in view of Boyd obviates, the image generation device having a Fresnel lens of claim 4.
But Kanetoku in view of Boyd does not explicitly disclose, wherein the plurality of lenses further comprises: a fly eye lens; and an illumination lens.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Koyama teaches, on Fig. 1, that it is desirable in projection systems to include wherein a plurality of lenses (lenses 2, 3, 5) further comprises: a fly eye lens (Fly eye lenses 2 and 3) [Par 15] and an illumination lens (condenser lens 5) [Par 15].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Kanetoku in view of Boyd with Koyama in order to split the light beams, as taught by Koyama [Par 15].
Re Claim 8, Kanetoku in view of Boyd and Koyama obviates, the image generation device having a Fresnel lens of claim 7, and Kanetoku further teaches on Fig. 1 wherein the plurality of lenses (Fig. 1: lenses 22, 23, and 24) [Par 12-13] further comprise a collimation lens (Fig. 1 of Kanetoku: optical element 22 makes the light parallel, or collimates it) [Par 12] disposed between the light source (sources 21) [Par 11-14] and the rest of the plurality of lenses (optical element is on the object side), and Koyama further teaches on Fig. 1 a fly eye lens (fly eye lenses 2 and 3)[Par 15].
But Kanetoku in view of Boyd and Koyama does not explicitly teach wherein, the collimation lens is disposed between the light source and the fly eye lens.
However, since Kanetoku does teach the placement of the collimating lens (22) on the side of the plurality of lenses closest to the source (See Fig. 1 and source 21), and Koyama teaches multiple different placements of fly eye lenses (Fig. 1: lenses 2 and 3), it is know in the prior art before the filing date of the invention to control and arrange the location of both collimating lenses and fly eye lenses, and Kanetoku explicitly teaches the placement of collimating lenses on the most object side of a lens system. Thus, one of ordinary skill would have known to include the fly eye lens on the image side of the collimating lens, based on the teaching of Kanetoku and Koyama. Further one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide, splitting of the light beams, as taught by Koyama [Par 15].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Kanetoku, Boyd, and Koyama such that, the collimation lens is disposed between the light source and the fly eye lens, in order to provide splitting of the light beams, as taught by Koyama [Par 15].
Re Claim 9, Kanetoku in view of Boyd and Koyama obviates, the image generation device having a Fresnel lens of claim 7.
But Kanetoku in view of Boyd and Koyama does not explicitly teach, wherein the Fresnel lens is closer to the prism sheet among the illumination lens and the prism sheet.
Boyd further teaches on Fig. 4, a prism sheet (prismatic film 52) only separated from the Fresnel lens (Fresnsel lens 46) by a diffuser (lens 23 diffuses light) [Par 25] film (diffuser (lens 23 diffuses light) [Par 25] film 50), and Koyama further teaches on Fig. 1 an illumination lens (condenser lens 5) [Par 15] on the most image side of the lenses (lenses 2-3 and 5).
However, since Boyd further teaches on Fig. 4, a prism sheet (prismatic film 52) only separated from the Fresnel lens (Fresnsel lens 46) by a diffuser (lens 23 diffuses light) [Par 25] film (diffuser (lens 23 diffuses light) [Par 25] film 50), and Koyama further teaches on Fig. 1 an illumination lens (condenser lens 5) [Par 15] on the most image side of the lenses (lenses 2-3 and 5), it is known in the prior art before the filing date of the invention to control and arrange the location of both collimating lenses, fresnel lenses, and prism sheets, and Koyama explicitly teaches the placement of illuminating lenses on the most image side of a lens system. Thus, one of ordinary skill would have known to include the illumination lens on the image side of the plurality lenses, and thus farther from the Fresnel lens, comparatively to the teaching of Boyd where the prismatic lens is close to the Fresnel lens as described above. Further one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do arrange these lens components in this way in order to control when in the optical path the light is condensed (in the case of Koyama its after the light has been polarized), as taught by Koyama [Par 15-17].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Kanetoku, Boyd, and Koyama such that, the Fresnel lens is closer to the prism sheet among the illumination lens and the prism sheet, in order to when in the optical path the light is condensed (in the case of Koyama it’s after the light has been polarized), as taught by Koyama [Par 15-17].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wheelwright (US 20180074324 A1) also teaches a Fresnel lens.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAY ALEXANDER DEAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571)-272-2713. 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.
/RAY ALEXANDER DEAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights