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 Statements
The Information Disclosure Statements filed on 9/27/3024 and 10/29/2024 have been considered.
DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/899,123 filed on 9/27/2024 is presented for examination by the Examiner.
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 6, 18, said claims recite “the central region of the first expansion region is a region having a length of 1/4 or more and 3/4 or less from an end in the first direction, and the end region is a region having a length of less than 1/4 from an end in the first direction” in lines 1-4. The above phrase renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear to which region the central region and the end region are compared to. For examination purposes, the phrase will be taken to mean the central region and the end region being compared to the first expansion region (see formulae (1)-(3) of the specification).
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.
Claims 1, 5, 7-9, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lou et al. (US 10,962,787, hereinafter, “Lou”).
Regarding claim 1, Lou discloses an optical system 19 for allowing an observer to visually recognize an image (Fig. 1, 5, col. 6, lines 6-18), comprising:
a first expansion region 18 that expands a luminous flux traveling in a first direction X by splitting and duplicating it into luminous fluxes traveling in a second direction Y intersecting the first direction to increase the number of luminous fluxes (Fig. 5, col. 7, line 55 to col. 8, line 15); and
a second expansion region 13 that expands the luminous fluxes traveling in the second direction Y by splitting and duplicating them to increase the number of luminous fluxes (Fig. 5, col. 8, lines 16-31),
the first expansion region including a central region (see, for example, the central region of 18) that contains a center of the first expansion region, and an end region (see, for example, the left region of 18) that lies on at least one end side of the first expansion region 18, the end region having a diffracted light quantity less than the diffracted light quantity in the central region (see Fig. 7A where it is shown that the left end of the grating 18 has lower height than the height of the central region of 18-the other parameters (i.e., pitch) being equal-which implies that the diffracted light quantity is lower in the end region than in the central region (according to [0082] of the specification)).
Lou does not disclose the end region having a diffracted light quantity less than half the diffracted light quantity in the central region. Lou discloses that the end region has diffracted light quantity less than the diffracted light quantity in the central region.
The parameter of the amount of diffracted light quantity being emitted by the different sections of the grating region 18 in Fig. 5 of Lou is a result-effective variable, i.e., it is recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, effecting the brightness of the image projected to the user, see col. 9, lines 8-21 in Lou.
Lou discloses the claimed invention except for the diffracted light quantity from the end region being less than half of that of the central region.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Lou so that the diffracted light quantity from the end region lies within the claimed range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
In the current instance, the diffracted light quantity from the transmission grating 18 is an art recognized result-effective variable in that it affects the brightness of the projected image, as taught by Lou.
Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize the diffracted light quantity from the end region because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process”.
Regarding claim 5, Lou discloses the optical system according to claim 1, wherein
in the end region of the first expansion region, the diffracted light quantity increases from an end of the end region away from the central region of the first expansion region toward the central region (Fig. 7A in Lou, the height of the tooth increases from the end towards the central region).
Regarding claim 7, Lou discloses the optical system according to claim 1, comprising:
a coupling region 12 that changes a traveling direction of an incident luminous flux toward the first expansion region 18 (col. 7, lines 63-67), wherein
the end region (i.e., left) of the first expansion region 18 is a region closer to the coupling region 12 (Fig. 5 in Lou).
Regarding claim 8, Lou discloses the optical system according to claim 1, comprising:
a coupling region 12 that changes a traveling direction of an incident luminous flux toward the first expansion region 18 (col. 7, lines 63-67) .
Lou does not disclose the end region (i.e., the right) of the first expansion region is a region farther from the coupling region (and having lower diffracted light quantity). In Lou the left end of grating 18 is shown as having lower tooth height than the central region (Fig. 7A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Lou so that both ends of grating 18 have lower tooth height (and thus, lower diffracted light quantity) than the central region, for selectively guiding diffracted light from grating 18 to grating 13.
Regarding claim 9, Lou discloses the optical system according to claim 1, wherein
the first expansion region 18 includes a diffraction grating (Fig. 5), and
a height of the diffraction grating in the end region (i.e., left) of the first expansion region is lower than a height of the diffraction grating in the central region (Fig. 7A in Lou).
Lou does not disclose a height of the diffraction grating in the end region (i.e., right) of the first expansion region (and having lower diffracted light quantity) is lower than a height of the diffraction grating in the central region.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Lou so that both ends of grating 18 have lower tooth height (and thus, lower diffracted light quantity) for selectively guiding diffracted light from grating 18 to grating 13.
Regarding claim 14, Lou discloses the optical system according to claim 1, wherein
the end region of the first expansion region 18 lies on the end side of the first expansion region on which the luminous flux is incident (Fig. 5).
Claims 2-3, 15, 17, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lou in view of Olkkonen et al. (US 2021/0215942, hereinafter, “Olkkonen”).
Regarding claim 2, Lou discloses the optical system according to claim 1, wherein
the second expansion region 13 lies in the second direction Y of the central region (Fig. 5).
Lou does not disclose a region without the second expansion region lies in the second direction of the end region.
Olkkonen discloses a diffractive display system comprising a waveguide body (Abstract). In one embodiment, the diffractive structure includes an in-coupling grating 11, an exit pupil expansion grating 12 and an out-coupling grating 13 (Fig. 1, [0034]). In Olkkonen, there is a region (for example, the left and the right end) of the grating 12 (corresponding to the claimed first expansion region) that is without the grating 13 (corresponding to the claimed second expansion region).
Both Lou and Olkkonen disclose diffractive lightguides used in head-mounted displays and head-up displays.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Lou so that there is a region of the grating 18 without the grating 13, as taught by Olkkonen, for achieving less manufacturing cost as less area of the waveguide 19 needs to be etched for the second expansion region 13 (Fig. 5 in Lou).
Regarding claim 3, Lou discloses the optical system according to claim 1.
Lou does not disclose a length in the first direction of the first expansion region is longer than a length in the first direction of the second expansion region.
Olkkonen discloses a diffractive display system comprising a waveguide body (Abstract). In one embodiment, the diffractive structure includes an in-coupling grating 11, an exit pupil expansion grating 12 and an out-coupling grating 13 (Fig. 1, [0034]). In Olkkonen, a length in the first direction X of grating 16 (corresponding to the claimed first expansion region) is longer than a length in the first direction X of grating 13 (corresponding to the claimed second expansion region).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Lou so that a length in the first direction of the first expansion region is longer than a length in the first direction of the second expansion region, as taught by Olkkonen, for achieving less manufacturing cost as less area of the waveguide 19 needs to be etched for the second expansion region 13 (Fig. 5 in Lou).
Regarding claim 15, Lou/ Olkkonen discloses the optical system according to claim 2, wherein
a length in the first direction of the first expansion region 12 is longer than a length in the first direction of the second expansion region 13 (Fig. 1 in Olkkonen).
Regarding claim 17, Lou/ Olkkonen discloses the optical system according to claim 2, wherein
in the end region (e.g., left) of the first expansion region, the diffracted light quantity increases from an end of the end region away from the central region of the first expansion region toward the central region (Fig. 7A in Lou).
Regarding claim 19, Lou/ Olkkonen discloses the optical system according to claim 2, comprising:
a coupling region 12 that changes a traveling direction of an incident luminous flux toward the first expansion region 18 (Fig. 5 in Lou), wherein
the end region of the first expansion region is a region closer to the coupling region (Fig. 5 in Lou).
Regarding claim 20, Lou/ Olkkonen discloses the optical system according to claim 2, comprising:
a coupling region 12 that changes a traveling direction of an incident luminous flux toward the first expansion region 18 (Fig. 5 in Lou).
Lou/Olkkonen does not disclose the end region (i.e., the right) of the first expansion region is a region farther from the coupling region (and having lower diffracted light quantity). In Lou/Olkkonen the left end of grating 18 is shown as having lower tooth height than the central region (Fig. 7A in Lou).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Lou/ Olkkonen so that both ends of grating 18 have lower tooth height (and thus, lower diffracted light quantity) for properly managing the amount of diffracted light loss from the connecting grating 18.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lou in view of Rikkola (US 2024/0393598, hereinafter, “Rikkola”).
Regarding claim 12, Lou discloses a head-up display system comprising:
the optical system of claim 1 (Fig. 1).
Lou does not disclose a display part that emits a luminous flux before being expanded by the optical system; and a light-transmitting member that reflects a luminous flux emitted from the optical system, the image as a virtual image being displayed superimposed on a real scene visible through the light-transmitting member.
Rikkola discloses an optical display that may be used in a vehicle (Abstract). In one embodiment, a display device 8100 comprising a waveguide 8110, an in-coupling structure 8121, an intermediate pupil expansion structure 8122, an out-coupling structure 8123, and an optical engine 8130 is used in a vehicle 8000 so that the display device is positioned in a windshield 8200 (aka light-transmitting member) so that a virtual image emitted by the optical engine/display part 8130 is formed on the windshield 8200 and superimposed on a real scene visible therethrough (Fig. 8, [0099]-[0103]).
Both Lou and Rikkola disclose diffractive lightguides used in head-up displays.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Lou so that the diffraction waveguide 19 is placed in a windshield of a vehicle so that virtual information is provided to the driver, for enhancing the utility of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 13, Lou/Rikkola discloses the head-up display system according to claim 12, wherein
the light-transmitting member is a windshield of a moving object (Fig. 8, [0103] in Rikkola).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 10-11, 16 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.
Claims 6, 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claims 4, 16, Lou/ Olkkonen is silent as to the proportion of the diffracted light quantity in the central region of the first expansion region 18 overlapping with the second expansion region 13 when viewed from the second direction is within a range of ±10% of a design value. Lou only discloses the diffracted light quantity being uneven along the length of the first expansion region 18.
Regarding claims 6, 18, Lou/ Olkkonen is silent as to the relative lengths of the central and end regions of the first expansion region.
Regarding claims 10, 11, Lou/ Olkkonen is silent as to the claimed relation between the duty ratios of the diffraction gratings in the central and end regions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEONIDAS BOUTSIKARIS whose telephone number is (703)756-4529. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fr. 9.00-5.00.
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, Stephone Allen, can be reached on 571-272-2434. 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.
/L.B./
Patent Examiner, AU 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights