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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-4, and 9-10 (Species A) in the reply filed on September 1, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the examination would not result serious search and examination burden. This is not found persuasive because the different species are mutually exclusive from each other that search and examination for one species would not be the same for the other species.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 5-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on September 1, 2026.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication by Daiku (US 2023/0092598 A1) in view of the US patent application publication by Watanabe et al (US 2024/0142796 A1).
Daiku teaches an aerial display apparatus that serves as the projection device that is comprised of a display assembly (20, please see Figures 1 and 18) having a display surface (25, Figure 18) that the display surface implicitly has a horizontal viewing angle and a vertical viewing angle the display assembly being adapted to generate image light, (please see Figure 1). Daiku teaches that the image light generated by the display assembly has a light distribution falls within the range greater than -35.0 degrees and +35.0 degrees, with respective to normal direction of the display surface, (please see paragraph [0086], and [0091]), which means that the full width at half maximum of the displayed light at the horizontal viewing angle and the vertical viewing angle must be less or equal to 35 degrees.
Daiku teaches the projection device further comprises a reflective assembly or mirror device (10, Figure 1) disposed on a transmission path of the displayed light, the reflective assembly having a base member (11, Figure 2) serves as the light transmitting substrate and a plurality of reflective elements (12, please see Figures 2, 4 and 5). The light transmitting substrate being inclined relative to the display surface, (please see Figure 1) and the reflective elements are disposed on the light-transmitting substrate, (please see Figure 2) and the reflective elements are adapted to reflect the displayed light or image light to a projection position (30, Figure 1).
This reference has met all the limitations of the claims. It however does not teach explicitly that this aerial image display apparatus is a holographic projection device. But this feature is only recited in the preamble that does not give positive limitations to the claims, rather it is considered to be intended use. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Madham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
This reference also does not teach explicitly that the generated image light from the display assembly is collimated image light. Watanabe et al in the same field of endeavor teaches an air floating image display apparatus wherein the display assembly or video display apparatus (102, Figure 7) comprises a Fresnel lens (502, Figure 7) that is capable of collimating light so that the generated image light is a collimated light, (please see paragraph [0045]). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Watanabe et al to modify the display assembly to include a collimator for the benefit of making the generated image light a collimated image light to achieve desired the image quality.
With regard to claim 2, Daiku teaches that the display assembly (20, Figure 18) comprises a light source module (22) and a display panel (25). Watanabe et al teaches that the display apparatus or display assembly (102, Figure 7) comprises a light source module (503), a Fresnel lens or collimation module (502) and a display panel (301) wherein the light source module is disposed opposite to the display panel and the collimation module is disposed between the light source module and the display panel. A display surface is located on a side of the display panel facing away from the collimation module, the collimation module is adapted to transform light generated by the light source module to collimated light and the display panel is adapted to transform the collimated light to the collimated image light, (please see Figure 7 and paragraphs [0043] to [0045]).
With regard to claim 10, Daiku teaches that the reflective assembly or mirror device (10) comprises a dihedral corner reflector array, (please see paragraph [0030]) that the reflective elements (12, Figure 2) respectively comprises a plurality of micro reflectors the micro reflectors stand on light transmitting substrate and the micro reflectors are adapted to reflect the collimated image light to the project position, (please see Figures 2-5).
Claim(s) 3, and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daiku and Watanabe et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of the US patent issued to Scharf et al (PN. 6,105,869).
The aerial image display apparatus taught by Daiku in combination with the teachings of Watanabe et al as described in claims 1 and 2 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claim 3, Watanabe et al teaches that the light source module may comprise a plurality of light-emitting elements or LEDs (402-407 or 415-421, Figures 4 and 5). These references however do not teach explicitly that the collimation module comprises a plurality of collimating lenses that each of the collimating lenses is disposed opposite to each of the light-emitting elements. However, such feature is explicitly taught by Scharf et al wherein a plurality of collimating lenses (40, Figure 3A, 44, Figure 6A) that each of the collimating lenses is disposed opposite to each of the light emitting elements (18, Figures 3A and 7). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Scharf et al to alternatively provide a plurality of collimating lenses each being disposed opposite to each of the light-emitting elements for the benefit of providing an alternative design for the collimation module.
With regard to claim 4, Scharf et al teaches that the light-emitting elements respectively have top surfaces (please see Figures 3A to 7) wherein the top surfaces respectively face toward collimating lenses the top surface are respectively spaced apart from the collimating lenses by a gap that is less than 50 mm.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daiku and Watanabe et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of the US patent application publication by Yoshizawa et al (US 2022/0368821 A1).
The aerial image display apparatus taught by Daiku in combination with the teachings of Watanabe et al as described in claims 1 and 2 above has met all the limitations of the claim.
With regard to claim 9, Daiku teaches to further comprise a light control device (26, Figure 18) with a grating structure of alternative transparent region and translucent regions which is disposed opposite to the display surface (25, please see paragraph [0084]). This reference however does not teach explicitly that the grating is to transform image light emitted by the display surface to the collimated image light. Yoshizawa et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a lover film (16, Figure 6) that has a grating structure of alternatively arranged transparent regions (102) and light shielding part (104) that is capable of transform image light from display panel (12) to collimated light, (please see paragraph [0080]). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Yoshizawa et al to modify the light control device to have the property of transforming image light from the display panel to the collimated image light.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUDREY Y CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2309. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 900AM-430PM.
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 B Allen can be reached at 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.
AUDREY Y. CHANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/AUDREY Y CHANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights