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 § 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yamada (United States Patent Application Publication 20240295749 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Yamada discloses a display device (see fig.18) for displaying an aerial image (I in fig.18) using retro-reflection (see 5 in fig.18), the display device comprising: an optical member (see 13 in fig.18) configured to separate incident light into reflected light and transmitted light (see the polarization beam splitter of 13); a retro-reflective member (5 in fig.18) positioned to face the optical member (13 in fig.18) and having a cutout or an opening that features a design (see 5a); a light source (see 4b, 4 and 3) positioned on a backside of the retro-reflective member (see 5 in fig.18 or 5 and 12 in fig.18); and a transparent member (see 16 or/and 12 in fig.18) made of a substance with a refractive index greater than 1 (see the non-gaseous structure of 12 or/and 16), and positioned between the optical member (13 in fig.18 ) and the retro-reflective member (see 5 in fig.18).
With respect to claim 3, Yamada discloses the display device according to claim 1, wherein the transparent member (see 12 in fig.5) is made of a material, a difference between the retro-reflective member and the material in refractive index being substantially zero or less than or equal to a predetermined value (since the predetermined value can be arbitrarily high as material structure satisfies this condition).
With respect to claim 4, Yamada discloses the display device according to claim 1, wherein, when the retro-reflective member (see 5 and 12) includes a phase member (see 12 in fig.18) on a surface of the retro-reflective member (see 5 in fig.18), the transparent member (16) is made of a material, a difference between the phase member and the material in refractive index being substantially zero or less than or equal to a predetermined value (since the predetermined value can be arbitrarily high as material structure satisfies this condition).
With respect to claim 6, Yamada discloses the display device according to claim 1, wherein the optical member is a half mirror, a beam splitter, or a polarizing beam splitter (see the beam splitter of 13 in fig.18).
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tanaka (JP WO2019039600 A1).
With respect to claims 1, Tanaka discloses a display device (see fig.6B) for displaying an aerial image (S1 and S2 in fig.6B) using retro-reflection (see 7 in fig.6B), the display device comprising: an optical member (see 23b in fig.6B) configured to separate incident light into reflected light and transmitted light (see 23b); a retro-reflective member (4 in fig.6B) positioned to face the optical member (23b in fig.6B) and having a cutout or an opening that features a design (see OP); a light source (see 1 in fig.6B) positioned on a backside of the retro-reflective member (see 1 in fig.6B); and a transparent member (see 23a, 23c and 7 in fig.6B) made of a substance with a refractive index greater than 1 (see at least transparent layer 23a ) and the retro-reflective member (see 4 in fig.6A).
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (WO2019039600 A1).
With respect to claim 2, Tanaka discloses wherein the transparent member is substantially rectangular in shape in cross-section (see the cross-sectional shape in fig.6B ), and wherein an upper surface of the transparent member (see upper surface of 23a) is in contact with the optical member (see 23b), and a bottom surface of the transparent member (7 in fig.6a) is in contact with the retro-reflective member (see 4 fig.6B) and discloses a variety of different shapes for the retroreflective member (second paragraph under Seventh embodiment: “the retroreflective member 4 has a flat plate shape, an L-shaped cross section, or a curved surface shape, and an inclination angle at the time of forming the flat plate shape” but does not explicitly disclose the transparent member is substantially rectangular.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Tanaka so that the transparent member is substantially rectangular, since it would have predictably simplified manufacture and enhanced versatility and since such a modification would have involved merely changing the shape of a component when a change in shape is recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In reDailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (United States Patent Application Publication 2024/0295749 A1) in view of Shin (United States Patent Application Publication 20130162930 A1).
With respect to claim 5, Yamada discloses the display device according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the transparent member is made of an acrylic material.
Shin disclose wherein a retardation film is made of acrylic material ([0052] : The retardation film may be formed of acrylic compounds, cellulose compounds, or a combination thereof.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the transparent material of Yamada with teaching of Shin so that the transparent member is made of an acrylic material to enhance the alignment properties of the film and reduce cost.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERRY L. BROOKS whose telephone number is (571)270-5711. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-4:00 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, Toan Ton can be reached at 5712722303. 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.
/JERRY L BROOKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882
Prosecution Insights