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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-3, 5-7 and 9 are currently pending in the present application. Claims 1-3 and 5-6 are currently amended; claims 4 and 8 are canceled; and claims 7 and 9 are original. The amendment dated August 24, 2026 has been entered into the record.
Response to Arguments
(1) Applicant's arguments with respect to the newly amended claim 1 have been fully considered, and are persuasive.
The examiner considers the prior art of Shishido and Takahashi fail to explicitly disclose, in light of the specifications, “a lower edge of the combiner is positioned below a lower edge of the beam splitter in an up-down direction; and wherein the light-shielding unit is configured to shield a first portion of the external light, wherein the first portion of the external light enters at a first angle such that the first portion of the external light is transmitted through the lower edge of the combiner, is reflected by the beam splitter, and is directed toward the eye of the user, and wherein the light-shielding unit is further configured to shield a second portion of the external light, wherein the second portion of the external light enters at a second angle such that the second portion of the external light is reflected by the lower edge of the beam splitter and is directed toward the eye of the user, the lower edge of the beam splitter being positioned at a front side of the beam splitter”.
(2) Applicant's arguments with respect to the newly amended claim 6 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive by the following reasons:
The applicant argues the presently claimed second portion of the external light PL61 enters at a second angle such that the second portion of the external light PL61 is reflected by the lower edge 122L1 of the beam splitter 122L and is directed toward the eye of the user. It is clear from Shishido's Figs. 3 and 22 that windows 180L, 180R cannot shield either the first or second portions of the external light. There is no teaching or suggestion found in Shishido that the windows 180L, 180R can be modified such that the two portions of the external light would be shielded, as in the presently claimed subject matter (Remarks, Pages 9-14).
However, the examiner considers Shishido teaches the feature of “wherein the light-shielding unit is arranged such that the light-shielding unit does not enter the first visual field region and such that the light-shielding unit does not enter the second visual field region” (see Figure 6 of the present application and Figure 22 of Shishido below, annotated by the examiner).
[AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval]
PNG
media_image1.png
630
762
media_image1.png
Greyscale
<Figure 6 of the present application describing a first visual field VR1 and a second visual field VR2, in which the light-shielding unit 130L (130R) does not enter the first visual field region and the light-shielding unit does not enter the second visual field region>
PNG
media_image2.png
70
68
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image3.png
85
89
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
508
588
media_image4.png
Greyscale
<Figure 22 of the Shishido, annotated by the examiner, describing a first visual field VR1 and a second visual field VR2, in which the light-shielding unit 180L (180R) does not enter the first visual field region and the light-shielding unit does not enter the second visual field region; Regarding the definition of the first visual field and the second visual field, please see claim 6>
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 (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 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 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shishido (US 20220171198), of record.
Regarding claim 6, Shishido discloses a head-mounted display (Figs. 3 and 22; see Paras. [0010] and [0029] identifying the embodiment shown in Figs. 3 and 22), comprising:
a combiner (121L; Para. [0047]) configured to combine display light (PL11) with an external scene in front of a user wearing the head-mounted display (Paras. [0056]-[0057]);
a beam splitter (122L; Para. [0047]) arranged between the combiner and an eye of the user (Figs. 3, 22), and configured to reflect the display light toward the combiner, and to transmit the display light reflected by the combiner (Para. [0005]); and
a light-shielding unit (180L; Para. [0145] “the lower windows 180L and 180R have a plurality of light shielding plates inclined diagonally”),
wherein a field of vision of the user includes: a first visual field region (a field of vision through 121L; Paras. [0142], [0145]) that is visually recognized by the user through the combiner; and a second visual field region (a field of vision below 121L in the diagonally lower front; Para. [0145]) that is visually recognized, as a field of vision continuing to a lower side of the first visual field region, without passing through the combiner and with passing below the combiner (Fig. 22; Para. [0145]),
wherein the light-shielding unit shields external light that is to enter from below the second visual field region, be reflected by the beam splitter, and be directed toward the eye of the user (Fig. 22; 180L blocks at least external light incident at a normal angle to the light shielding plates), and
wherein the light-shielding unit is arranged such that the light-shielding unit does not enter the first visual field region and such that the light-shielding unit does not enter the second visual field region (see VR1 and VR2 in Fig. 22 of Shishido above, annotated by the examiner).
Regarding claim 9, Shishido discloses the limitations of claim 6 above, and further discloses wherein the light-shielding unit includes a louver film (Para. [0145] “a louvered structure”) that is arranged below a lower edge of the beam splitter and is configured to transmit the external scene and to shield the external light (see Fig. 22 and Para. [0145]).
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shishido in view of Takahashi (US 20190255946), of record.
Regarding claim 7, Shishido discloses the limitations of claim 6 above.
Shishido does not disclose the light-shielding unit includes a light shielding plate that projects from below a lower edge of the combiner in a direction away from the user.
However, Takahashi teaches further providing a light-shielding plate (2b in Fig. 1; Para. [0020]) projecting from an edge of a combiner (20) in a direction away from a user (200).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the head-mounted display as disclosed by Shishido with the teachings of Takahashi, wherein the light-shielding unit includes a light shielding plate that projects from below a lower edge of the combiner in a direction away from the user, for the purpose of further shielding external light at the opening at the opening of a housing (Takahashi: Para. [0023]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3 and 5 are allowable over prior art.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 1, the prior art of Shishido (US 20220171198), of record, discloses a head-mounted display (Figs. 3 and 22; see Paras. [0010] and [0029] identifying the embodiment shown in Figs. 3 and 22), comprising:
a combiner (121L; Para. [0047]) configured to combine display light (PL11) with an external scene in front of a user wearing the head-mounted display (Paras. [0056]-[0057]), and provided to extend below a lower edge of an optical path of the display light entering the combiner (Figs. 3, 22); and
a beam splitter (122L; Para. [0047]) arranged between the combiner and an eye of the user (Figs. 3, 22), and configured to reflect the display light toward the combiner, and to transmit the display light reflected by the combiner (Para. [0005]); and
a light-shielding unit (180L; Para. [0145] “the lower windows 180L and 180R have a plurality of light shielding plates inclined diagonally”) configured to shield external light that is to be transmitted through the combiner, be reflected by the beam splitter, and be directed toward the eye of the user (see Fig. 22 where 180L blocks at least external light incident at a normal angle to the plates).
The prior art of Takahashi (US 20190255946), of record, further teaches providing a light-shielding plate (2b in Fig. 1; Para. [0020]) projecting from an edge of a combiner (20) in a direction away from a user (200).
However, Shishido and Takahashi fail to explicitly disclose, in light of the specifications, “a lower edge of the combiner is positioned below a lower edge of the beam splitter in an up-down direction; and wherein the light-shielding unit is configured to shield a first portion of the external light, wherein the first portion of the external light enters at a first angle such that the first portion of the external light is transmitted through the lower edge of the combiner, is reflected by the beam splitter, and is directed toward the eye of the user, and wherein the light-shielding unit is further configured to shield a second portion of the external light, wherein the second portion of the external light enters at a second angle such that the second portion of the external light is reflected by the lower edge of the beam splitter and is directed toward the eye of the user, the lower edge of the beam splitter being positioned at a front side of the beam splitter”.
The examiner further considered Yamaguchi (US 20220276493) and Border et al. (US 20180267302, hereinafter “Border”). However, Yamaguchi and Border and the prior art of record, applied alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the combination and arrangement of elements recited in Applicant's claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-3 and 5 are allowable by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN Y JUNG whose telephone number is (469)295-9076. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Michael H Caley can be reached on (571)272-2286. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JONATHAN Y JUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights