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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11-14-24 and 11-21-24 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
Claims 1-4, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being fully anticipated by Nemoto (US20220057548).
Re claim 1, Nemoto teaches for example in fig. 1, 3a, 3b, 8a-8c, an image display device, comprising: a first reflection type volume hologram (101; para. 0098, 0132) and a second reflection type volume hologram (102; para. 0098, 0132) forming a transmission type diffraction element as a whole (para. 0091-0092, 0133), wherein the first reflection type volume hologram and the second reflection type volume hologram satisfy a Bragg condition for incident light (para. 0099-0100, 0168, 0279) of three colors of red, green, and blue (para. 0281-0282, 0287; fig. 8a), the first reflection type volume hologram diffracts the incident light incident at an incident angle θi at a connection angle θc and deflects the incident light to the second reflection type volume hologram )para. 0150), the second reflection type volume hologram condenses the deflected incident light (para. 0137, 0139), and the incident angle θi and the connection angle θc satisfy following condition 1 or condition 2:
(condition 1) 10 degrees ≤ incident angle θi ≤ 90 degrees (fig. 4a; para. 0150),
10 degrees ≤ connection angle θc ≤ 90 degrees ((fig. 4a; para. 0150), and
4 x incident angle θi + connection angle θc ≤ 170 degrees (fig. 4a; para. 0150), and
(condition 2)
70 degrees ≤ incident angle θi ≤ 90 degrees, and
70 degrees ≤ connection angle θc ≤ 90 degrees.
Re claim 2, Nemoto further teaches for example in fig. 1, 3a, 3b, 8a-8c, the incident angle θi and the connection angle θc satisfy following condition 1a or condition 2:
(condition 1a)
10 degrees ≤ incident angle θi ≤ 90 degrees (fig. 4a; para. 0150),
30 degrees ≤ connection angle θc ≤ 90 degrees ((fig. 4a; para. 0150), and
6 x incident angle θi + connection angle θc ≤ 210 degrees (fig. 4a; para. 0150), and
(condition 2a)
70 degrees ≤ incident angle θi ≤ 90 degrees, and
70 degrees ≤ connection angle θc ≤ 90 degrees.
Re claim 3, Nemoto further teaches for example in fig. 1, 3a, 3b, 8a-8c, a light flux incident surface of the first reflection type volume hologram and a light flux incident surface of the second reflection type volume hologram face each other substantially in parallel (fig. 3a, 3b).
Re claim 4, Nemoto further teaches for example in fig. 1, 3a, 3b, 8a-8c, a diffraction angle of a central portion of the second reflection type volume hologram is approximately 0 degrees (fig. 4a).
Re claim 6, Nemoto further teaches for example in fig. 1, 3a, 3b, 8a-8c, the incident light is emitted from an image formation device separated from the image display device (claim 11 and claim 12).
Re claim 7, Nemoto teaches for example in fig. 1, 3a, 3b, 8a-8c, display device, comprising: an image display device that includes a first reflection type volume hologram (101; para. 0098, 0132) and a second reflection type volume hologram (102; para. 0098, 0132) forming a transmission type diffraction element as a whole (para. 0091-0092, 0133), wherein the first reflection type volume hologram and the second reflection type volume hologram satisfy a Bragg condition for incident light (para. 0099-0100, 0168, 0279) of three colors of red, green, and blue (para. 0281-0282, 0287; fig. 8a), the first reflection type volume hologram diffracts the incident light incident at an incident angle θi at a connection angle θc and deflects the incident light to the second reflection type volume hologram )para. 0150), the second reflection type volume hologram condenses the deflected incident light (para. 0137, 0139), and the incident angle θi and the connection angle θc satisfy following condition 1 or condition 2:
(condition 1) 10 degrees ≤ incident angle θi ≤ 90 degrees (fig. 4a; para. 0150),
10 degrees ≤ connection angle θc ≤ 90 degrees ((fig. 4a; para. 0150), and
4 x incident angle θi + connection angle θc ≤ 170 degrees (fig. 4a; para. 0150), and
(condition 2)
70 degrees ≤ incident angle θi ≤ 90 degrees, and
70 degrees ≤ connection angle θc ≤ 90 degrees.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is 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 taken alone or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the limitations of the claims, in such a manner that a rejection would be proper. The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the claimed features as presented in dependent claim 5.
Specifically regarding claim 5, Nemoto (US20220057548) teaches the state of the art of an image display.
But, Nemoto fails to explicitly teach a combination of all the claimed features including the incident light incident on the first reflection type volume hologram is p-polarized light, as claimed.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Takeyama (US20020060850).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH P MARTINEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-2335. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am to 7pm PACIFIC.
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.
/Joseph P Martinez/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 10-10-26
Prosecution Insights