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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/01/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-4, 6, 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trisnadi et al. (2018/0284585, of record) in view of Saitoh et al. (WO 2021/132630, of record).
Regarding claim 1, Trisnadi discloses an optical element (Figure 12A, 1250, low-profile BS) comprising: a liquid crystal diffraction element (1256, transmissive diffractive optical element; at least [0057] teaches the DOE may include a layer of polymer dispersed liquid crystal); and a prism (1254, prism) having a first surface (1252, input surface) which is in direct contact with the liquid crystal diffraction element or is in contact with the liquid crystal diffraction element through another layer (Figure 12A; [0103]), and the prism has a second surface (1255, beam splitting surface) which reflects one of separated light by diffraction of the liquid crystal diffraction element ([0107]).
Trisnadi fails to teach wherein the liquid crystal diffraction element includes an optically anisotropic layer having a liquid crystal alignment pattern in which an orientation of an optical axis derived from a liquid crystal compound changes while continuously rotating in at least one in-plane direction. Trisnadi and Saitoh are related because both teach an optical element.
Saitoh teaches an optical element wherein the liquid crystal diffraction element includes an optically anisotropic layer having a liquid crystal alignment pattern in which an orientation of an optical axis derived from a liquid crystal compound changes while continuously rotating in at least one in-plane direction (at least [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Trisnadi to incorporate the teachings of Saitoh and provide wherein the liquid crystal diffraction element includes an optically anisotropic layer having a liquid crystal alignment pattern in which an orientation of an optical axis derived from a liquid crystal compound changes while continuously rotating in at least one in-plane direction. Doing so would allow for improved display quality by reducing the influence of ambient light color and enable accurate visualization of a subject.
Regarding claim 2, the modified Trisnadi teaches the optical element according to claim 1, wherein, in the optically anisotropic layer, the liquid crystal compound is helically twisted and aligned along a thickness direction (Saitoh: at least [0053]).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Trisnadi teaches the optical element according to claim 2, wherein the liquid crystal diffraction element includes at least two optically anisotropic layers in which the liquid crystal compound is helically twisted and aligned along a thickness direction, and twisted directions of the liquid crystal compound in two of the optically anisotropic layers are opposite to each other in the thickness direction (Saitoh: at least [0053, 0112, 0113]).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Trisnadi teaches the optical element according to claim 1, wherein an angle between the first surface and the second surface of the prism is 70° to 110° ([0110] teaches θ.sub.BS to be 30 degrees or less, thus if θ.sub.BS is chosen to be 20 degrees or less, the angle between 1252, input surface, and 1255, beam splitting surface, would be 70 degrees or more; [0110] teaches as the angle θ.sub.BS decreases, the angle of diffraction increases).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Trisnadi teaches the optical element according to claim 1, wherein the liquid crystal diffraction element includes at least two optically anisotropic layers in which the liquid crystal compound is helically twisted and aligned along a thickness direction, and twisted directions of the liquid crystal compound in two of the optically anisotropic layers are opposite to each other in the thickness direction (Saitoh: at least [0053, 0112, 0113]).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Trisnadi teaches the optical element according to claim 2, wherein an angle between the first surface and the second surface of the prism is 70° to 110° ([0110] teaches θ.sub.BS to be 30 degrees or less, thus if θ.sub.BS is chosen to be 20 degrees or less, the angle between 1252, input surface, and 1255, beam splitting surface, would be 70 degrees or more; [0110] teaches as the angle θ.sub.BS decreases, the angle of diffraction increases).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Trisnadi teaches the optical element according to claim 3, wherein an angle between the first surface and the second surface of the prism is 70° to 110° ([0110] teaches θ.sub.BS to be 30 degrees or less, thus if θ.sub.BS is chosen to be 20 degrees or less, the angle between 1252, input surface, and 1255, beam splitting surface, would be 70 degrees or more; [0110] teaches as the angle θ.sub.BS decreases, the angle of diffraction increases).
Claims 5, 8, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trisnadi et al. (2018/0284585, of record) in view of Saitoh et al. (WO 2021/132630, of record) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shingaki et al. (5,381,278).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Trisnadi discloses the optical element according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein light separated by the diffraction of the liquid crystal diffraction element and reflected by the second surface and light which is not incident into the second surface are emitted from the same surface of the prism. The modified Trisnadi and Shingaki are related because both teach an optical element.
Shingaki teaches an optical element wherein separated light separated which is reflected by the second surface and light which is not incident into the second surface are emitted from the same surface of the prism (Figure 4, light reflected by 22a, total reflection surface, is output at the surface of 22, total reflection prism, adjacent to 25, plano-convex lens, and light that is not incident on 22a, total reflection surface, is also output at the surface of 22, total reflection prism, adjacent to 25, plano-convex lens).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified Trisnadi to incorporate the teachings of Shingaki and provide wherein light separated by the diffraction of the liquid crystal diffraction element and reflected by the second surface and light which is not incident into the second surface are emitted from the same surface of the prism. Doing so would allow for improved image quality and a compact system.
Regarding claim 8, the modified Trisnadi discloses the optical element according to claim 2, but fails to teach wherein light separated by the diffraction of the liquid crystal diffraction element and reflected by the second surface and light which is not incident into the second surface are emitted from the same surface of the prism. The modified Trisnadi and Shingaki are related because both teach an optical element.
Shingaki teaches an optical element wherein separated light separated which is reflected by the second surface and light which is not incident into the second surface are emitted from the same surface of the prism (Figure 4, light reflected by 22a, total reflection surface, is output at the surface of 22, total reflection prism, adjacent to 25, plano-convex lens, and light that is not incident on 22a, total reflection surface, is also output at the surface of 22, total reflection prism, adjacent to 25, plano-convex lens).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified Trisnadi to incorporate the teachings of Shingaki and provide wherein light separated by the diffraction of the liquid crystal diffraction element and reflected by the second surface and light which is not incident into the second surface are emitted from the same surface of the prism. Doing so would allow for improved image quality and a compact system.
Regarding claim 10, the modified Trisnadi discloses the optical element according to claim 3, but fails to teach wherein light separated by the diffraction of the liquid crystal diffraction element and reflected by the second surface and light which is not incident into the second surface are emitted from the same surface of the prism. The modified Trisnadi and Shingaki are related because both teach an optical element.
Shingaki teaches an optical element wherein separated light separated which is reflected by the second surface and light which is not incident into the second surface are emitted from the same surface of the prism (Figure 4, light reflected by 22a, total reflection surface, is output at the surface of 22, total reflection prism, adjacent to 25, plano-convex lens, and light that is not incident on 22a, total reflection surface, is also output at the surface of 22, total reflection prism, adjacent to 25, plano-convex lens).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified Trisnadi to incorporate the teachings of Shingaki and provide wherein light separated by the diffraction of the liquid crystal diffraction element and reflected by the second surface and light which is not incident into the second surface are emitted from the same surface of the prism. Doing so would allow for improved image quality and a compact system.
Regarding claim 11, the modified Trisnadi discloses the optical element according to claim 4, but fails to teach wherein light separated by the diffraction of the liquid crystal diffraction element and reflected by the second surface and light which is not incident into the second surface are emitted from the same surface of the prism. The modified Trisnadi and Shingaki are related because both teach an optical element.
Shingaki teaches an optical element wherein separated light separated which is reflected by the second surface and light which is not incident into the second surface are emitted from the same surface of the prism (Figure 4, light reflected by 22a, total reflection surface, is output at the surface of 22, total reflection prism, adjacent to 25, plano-convex lens, and light that is not incident on 22a, total reflection surface, is also output at the surface of 22, total reflection prism, adjacent to 25, plano-convex lens).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified Trisnadi to incorporate the teachings of Shingaki and provide wherein light separated by the diffraction of the liquid crystal diffraction element and reflected by the second surface and light which is not incident into the second surface are emitted from the same surface of the prism. Doing so would allow for improved image quality and a compact system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Oishi (5,124,841) discloses a relevant optical element.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BALRAM T PARBADIA whose telephone number is (571)270-0602. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571) 272-2713. 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.
/BALRAM T PARBADIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights