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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old appears to be illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 4 is 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.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the beam splitter is disposed such that an incident angle >a reflection angle upon the light representing the design being made incident thereon.” However the angles include no reference or necessary definition for clarity. For examination, and in accordance with originally presented para. [0028], the limitation is considered to be “wherein the beam splitter is disposed such that an incident angle >a reflection angle, each angle with respect to an axis passing through a center of curvature of the beam splitter, upon the light representing the design being made incident thereon.”
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 1, 4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamamoto et al. (US 2018/0284470), of record in IDS.
Regarding claim 1, Yamamoto discloses a display device (Fig. 13) capable of displaying an aerial image (I) by using retroreflection (paras. [0164-0167]), the display device comprising:
a generator (D1) configured to generate light (L1) representing a design of the aerial image as an original image;
a retroreflective member (2A) configured to retroreflect the light (L2) representing the design; and
a beam splitter (4) including a curved surface (Fig. 13), wherein
the beam splitter is disposed such that a concave side thereof faces the retroreflective member (Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 4, Yamamoto discloses wherein the beam splitter (4) is disposed such that an incident angle >a reflection angle upon the light representing the design being made incident thereon (Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 6, Yamamoto discloses wherein the retroreflective member (2A) has a principal surface thereof disposed obliquely with respect to an axis passing through a center of curvature of the beam splitter (4) (Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 7, Yamamoto discloses wherein the generator includes a display light source (D1) for emitting a video image as the design (para. [0164]).
Regarding claim 8, Yamamoto discloses wherein an optical axis (J1) of the display light source (D1) is disposed obliquely with respect to an axis passing through a center of curvature of the beam splitter (4) (Fig. 13).
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.
Claims 2, 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (US 2018/0284470), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamada et al. (US 2024/0295749), of record in IDS.
Regarding claim 2, Yamamoto fails to explicitly disclose wherein the retroreflective member includes an opening for generating the design, the generator includes a light source for illuminating the retroreflective member, and the light source illuminates the retroreflective member to generate light representing the design.
However, Yamada discloses a display device (Figs. 1-3, 11-21), wherein
the retroreflective member (5) includes an opening (5a) for generating the design (I),
the generator includes a light source (4b) for illuminating the retroreflective member, and
the light source (4b) illuminates the retroreflective member (5) to generate light representing the design (I) (para. [0038]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate wherein the retroreflective member includes an opening for generating the design, the generator includes a light source for illuminating the retroreflective member, and the light source illuminates the retroreflective member to generate light representing the design, as in Yamada, into the display device of Yamamoto to effectively produce a geometric image.
Regarding claim 3, Yamamoto fails to explicitly disclose wherein the generator further includes a diffuser plate and a polarizing plate between the light source and the retroreflective member, the light representing the design is polarized light, and the beam splitter is a polarized-beam splitter.
However, Yamada discloses wherein
the generator further includes a diffuser plate (5f, Fig. 20) and a polarizing plate (11, Figs. 13-18) between the light source (4b) and the retroreflective member (5),
the light (L3) representing the design (I) is polarized light (para. [0062]), and
the beam splitter is a polarized-beam splitter (13) (para. [0058]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate wherein the generator further includes a diffuser plate and a polarizing plate between the light source and the retroreflective member, the light representing the design is polarized light, and the beam splitter is a polarized-beam splitter, as in Yamada, into the display device of Yamamoto to improve contrast.
Regarding claim 5, Yamamoto fails to explicitly disclose in the embodiment of Fig. 13 wherein the retroreflective member is disposed such that a principal surface thereof is orthogonal to an axis passing through a center of curvature of the beam splitter.
However, Yamada discloses wherein the retroreflective member (5) is disposed such that a principal surface thereof is orthogonal to an axis (Z) passing through a center of the beam splitter (13) (Figs. 13-18).
Yamamoto further discloses a center of curvature of the beam splitter (4, Fig. 13).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate wherein the retroreflective member is disposed such that a principal surface thereof is orthogonal to an axis passing through a center of curvature of the beam splitter, as in Yamada, into the display device of Yamamoto to produce a flat, thin display.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAISLEY L WILSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5023. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:00pm ET.
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 CALEY can be reached at 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 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.
/PAISLEY L WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
