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 § 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) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riebe (DE 102018204274 A1, see Espacenet Machine Translation).
Re Claim 1, Riebe discloses, an aerial image display device (Fig. 1), comprising: a display (display 3) including a display surface (display surface 4) [Par 31]; a first concave mirror (mirror 6 is concave) configured to reflect, in a direction different from a direction toward the display (Fig. 1: mirror 6 reflects image light towards mirror 7), image light emitted from the display surface (image light comes from display 3); and a second concave mirror (mirror 7) configured to reflect, in a direction different from a direction toward the first concave mirror (mirror 7 reflects light toward spatial area 5), the image light reflected from the first concave mirror and form an aerial image as a real image (spatial area 5 where mirror 7 reflects light) [Par 30-31] wherein the first concave mirror has a first tilt angle ( angle ϕ +90 °) [Par 32] with respect to a first virtual plane including the display surface (Surface of display 3), the second concave mirror (mirror 7) (mirror 7) has a second tilt angle (ψ +90° )[Par 32] with respect to a second virtual plane including a virtual imaging plane of the aerial image (plane of spatial area 5).
But Riebe does not explicitly disclose, the first tilt angle of the first concave mirror is smaller than the second tilt angle of the second concave mirror (mirror 7).
However, Riebe does teach, on Fig. 1, the explicit control of the angles ψ and ϕ (where the first tilt angle is equal to angle ϕ +90 ° and second tilt angle ψ +90° )[Par 32], wherein they are not equal and the optimization of said angles is beneficial for the overall invention (“The predetermined tilt angle (φ + ψ) is equal to the sum of the respective angles of incidence φ and ψ of a central ray 8 emanating from the display 3 during its successive reflection at the concave mirrors 6 and 7. The two angles of incidence φ and ψ do not necessarily have to be the same. However, identical or at least similar angles of incidence φ and ψ can result in a particularly favorable and/or compact projection arrangement 1 with regard to the image quality and/or the mutual spatial arrangement of the concave mirrors 6 and 7, the display 3 and the predetermined spatial area 5 of the floating projection display 2.”) [Par 32]. Thus, Riebe teaches that it was known in the art at the time of the invention to explicitly control, the first tilt angle and second tilt angle [Par 32]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of simply changing the invention of Riebe such that, the first tilt angle of the first concave mirror is smaller than the second tilt angle of the second concave mirror (mirror 7). Further one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide compact projection arrangement [Par 32].
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 Riebe, such that the first tilt angle of the first concave mirror is smaller than the second tilt angle of the second concave mirror (mirror 7), so that the projector is compact, as taught by Riebe [Par 32].
Re Claim 2, modified Riebe obviates, the aerial image display device according to claim 1, and Riebe further discloses, wherein the second concave mirror (mirror 7) includes a reflective surface (reflective surface 7a)[Par 32] having a greater maximum diameter than a reflective surface (reflective surface 6a)[Par 32] of the first concave mirror (mirror 6) (Fig. 1 shows that surface 7a has a larger diameter than surface 6a, which is inherently true due to its larger focal length) [Par 34].
Re Claim 3, modified Riebe obviates, the aerial image display device according to claim 1.
But modified Riebe does not obviate, wherein the first concave mirror has a greater curvature than the second concave mirror.
However, Riebe teaches, on Fig. 1, “the respective size, curvature, shape of the concave mirrors and their distance from each other and from the display can be adapted to any specific requirement with regard to the size and optical quality of the floating projection display” [Par 12]. Thus, Riebe teaches that said quantities are result effective variables and controlling said quantities is known in the art at the time of the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of simply adjusting the curvature of the first concave mirror such that it is greater than the second concave mirror. Further one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to so, in order to optimize optical quality, and magnification [Par 12]. Note that the Court has held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation; see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
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 Riebe, in order to provide to optimized optical quality, and magnification [Par 12].
Re Claim 4, modified Riebe obviates, the aerial image display device according to claim 1, and Riebe further teaches on Fig. 1, wherein each of the first concave mirror (mirror 6) and the second concave mirror (mirror 7) is a freeform concave mirror (at least one of the concave mirrors is concave) [Par 20].
Re claim 5, modified Riebe obviates, the aerial image display device according to claim 1.
But Riebe does not explicitly disclose, wherein the first tilt angle of the first concave mirror is less than or equal to 35 degrees, and the second tilt angle of the second concave mirror is less than or equal to 50 degrees.
However, Riebe does teach, on Fig. 1, the explicit control of the angles ψ and ϕ (where the first tilt angle is equal to angle ϕ +90 ° and second tilt angle ψ +90° )[Par 32], wherein they are not equal and the optimization of said angles is beneficial for the overall invention (“The predetermined tilt angle (φ + ψ) is equal to the sum of the respective angles of incidence φ and ψ of a central ray 8 emanating from the display 3 during its successive reflection at the concave mirrors 6 and 7. The two angles of incidence φ and ψ do not necessarily have to be the same. However, identical or at least similar angles of incidence φ and ψ can result in a particularly favorable and/or compact projection arrangement 1 with regard to the image quality and/or the mutual spatial arrangement of the concave mirrors 6 and 7, the display 3 and the predetermined spatial area 5 of the floating projection display 2.”) [Par 32]. Thus, Riebe teaches that it was known in the art at the time of the invention to explicitly control, the first tilt angle and second tilt angle [Par 32]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of simply changing the invention of Riebe such that the first tilt angle of the first concave mirror is less than or equal to 35 degrees, and the second tilt angle of the second concave mirror is less than or equal to 50 degrees.. Further one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide compact projection arrangement [Par 32].
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 Riebe, such that, wherein the first tilt angle of the first concave mirror is less than or equal to 35 degrees, and the second tilt angle of the second concave mirror is less than or equal to 50 degrees, so that the projector is compact, as taught by Riebe [Par 32].
Re Claim 6, modified Riebe obviates, the aerial image display device according to claim 1, and Riebe further teaches, wherein the first concave mirror (mirror 6) is configured to reflect the image light (image ray 8)[Par 32] to propagate only through a space between the first concave mirror (mirror 6) and the second concave mirror (beam 8 exclusively travels from mirror 6 to mirror 7) [Par 32].
Re claim 7, modified Riebe obviates, the aerial image display device according to claim 1, wherein the second concave mirror (mirror 7) overlaps the first concave mirror (mirror 6) when the first concave mirror (mirror 6) is viewed from a rear surface of the second concave mirror (when viewing lens 6 from the rear surface of mirror 7) in a direction parallel to the virtual imaging plane (when viewing mirror 6 from the rear surface of mirror 7, mirror 7 overlaps mirror 6).
But modified Riebe does not explicitly teach wherein the second concave mirror overlaps the display.
Note the Court has held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification to the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art; see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1059) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553 188 (USPQ7 (CCPA 1975).
Riebe teaches the overall rearrangement and optimization of the display system components based on the needs of the system (The projection arrangement is defined by a suitable choice of the predetermined tilt angle and other geometric parameters of the projection arrangement, such as the respective size, curvature, shape of the concave mirrors and their distance from each other and from the display can be adapted to any specific requirement with regard to the size and optical quality of the floating projection display, its spatial position relative to the concave mirrors, its magnification relative to the display, etc. Furthermore, with this projection arrangement, a flexible or optimal adaptation to specific installation space conditions is possible through a suitable selection of these and other geometric parameters mentioned below.”) [Par 12].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to rearrange the location of the second concave mirror such that it overlaps the display, since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of an element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. Further, one would have been motivated to rearrange the location of the second concave mirror and display for the purpose of providing alternate arrangements of the elements, control the size and optical quality of the floating projection display [Par 12].
Re claim 7, modified Riebe obviates, the aerial image display device according to claim 1, wherein the second concave mirror (mirror 7) includes the first concave mirror (mirror 6) when the first concave mirror (mirror 6) is viewed from a rear surface of the second concave mirror (when viewing lens 6 from the rear surface of mirror 7) in a direction parallel to the virtual imaging plane (when viewing mirror 6 from the rear surface of mirror 7, mirror 7 overlaps mirror 6).
But modified Riebe does not explicitly teach wherein the second concave mirror includes the display.
Note the Court has held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification to the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art; see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1059) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553 188 (USPQ7 (CCPA 1975).
Riebe teaches the overall rearrangement and optimization of the display system components based on the needs of the system (The projection arrangement is defined by a suitable choice of the predetermined tilt angle and other geometric parameters of the projection arrangement, such as the respective size, curvature, shape of the concave mirrors and their distance from each other and from the display can be adapted to any specific requirement with regard to the size and optical quality of the floating projection display, its spatial position relative to the concave mirrors, its magnification relative to the display, etc. Furthermore, with this projection arrangement, a flexible or optimal adaptation to specific installation space conditions is possible through a suitable selection of these and other geometric parameters mentioned below.”) [Par 12].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to rearrange the location of the second concave mirror such that it includes the display, since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of an element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. Further, one would have been motivated to rearrange the location of the second concave mirror and display for the purpose of providing alternate arrangements of the elements, control the size and optical quality of the floating projection display [Par 12].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yamaguchi (US 20170336222 A1) similarly teaches a display system with two concave reflective surfaces.
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