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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-5 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 3/21/2025 and 11/28/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 21 March 2025. These drawings are accepted.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2024/062749 to Nishimura et al, all citations are to the attached English language machine translation (hereafter Nishimura), in view of US 2018/0267227 to Takata et al., made of record in the IDS filed 11/28/2025 (hereafter Takata).
Regarding claim 1, Nishimura discloses a display device configured for displaying an aerial image by using retro- reflection (see at least the abstract and Fig. 16c), the display device comprising: a light source disposed being inclined to one side of a reference line (see at least the abstract and Fig. 16c, where image display device 1 is a light source); a retroreflective member disposed being inclined to another side of the reference line (see at least the abstract and Fig. 16c, where 2 is a retroreflective member); a polarized-beam splitter disposed to face the light source and the retroreflective member (see at least the abstract and Fig. 16c, where 101 is a polarization separate member); and a light shielding portion provided on a front surface of the display device that blocks light from the light source from being visible by a user (see at least Fig. 16c and page 30, fourth paragraph, where 161C is a light shielding portion).
Nishimura does not specifically disclose a transmission film formed on the polarized-beam splitter, wherein the transmission film includes a low transmittance area in which the light source is difficult to be seen in an observation range where the aerial image is visible.
However, Takata teaches a display device comprising a light source and a cover, wherein a transmission film is formed on the cover, wherein the transmission film includes a low transmittance area in which the light source is difficult to be seen in an observation range where an image is visible (see at least the abstract, Fig. 1B, and paragraph [0037], where light shielding layer 82 is formed on light transmission layer 81).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Nishimura to include the teachings of Takata so that the device comprises a transmission film formed on the polarized-beam splitter, wherein the transmission film includes a low transmittance area in which the light source is difficult to be seen in an observation range where the aerial image is visible for the purpose of using a known light shielding layer in order to block direct viewing of the light source within the display device.
Regarding claim 3, Nishimura as modified by Takata discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Nishimura as modified by Takata does not specifically disclose that the low transmittance area is in an observation range in which the aerial image is not clipped, the observation range in which the aerial image is not clipped being within an observation range in which at least a part of the aerial image is visible.
However, Nishimura discloses that the image is visible via a ray trace directly adjacent to the low transmittance area (see at least Fig. 16C).
One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that at least a portion of the displayed image would be visible in an observation range that overlaps the transmittance area.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Nishimura as modified by Takata so that the low transmittance area is in an observation range in which the aerial image is not clipped, the observation range in which the aerial image is not clipped being within an observation range in which at least a part of the aerial image is visible for the purpose of viewing at least a portion of the aerial image in an observation range overlapping the low transmittance area.
Regarding claim 4, Nishimura as modified by Takata discloses all of the limitations of claim 3.
Nishimura also discloses that the low transmittance area is determined based on a position where a straight line connecting an end of the aerial image and an end of the light source crosses the transmission film (see at least Fig. 16C, where the low transmittance area is determined such that it completely blocks the view of the light source when viewing the image). Figure 16C is reproduced below with a line added to demonstrate a straight line connecting an end of the aerial image and an end of the light source.
PNG
media_image1.png
540
508
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Nishimura as modified by Takata discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Nishimura also discloses that the reference line is orthogonal to a main surface of the polarized-beam splitter, an angle between the reference line and an optical axis orthogonal to the main surface of the light source is less than 90 degrees, and an angle between the reference line and the optical axis orthogonal to the main surface of the retroreflective member is less than 90 degrees (see at least Fig. 16C).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2024/062749 to Nishimura et al, all citations are to the attached English language machine translation (hereafter Nishimura), in view of US 2018/0267227 to Takata et al., made of record in the IDS filed 11/28/2025 (hereafter Takata) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2017/0157420 to Smedinga et al. (hereafter Smedinga).
Regarding claim 2, Nishimura as modified by Takata discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Nishimura as modified by Takata does not specifically disclose that the transmission film includes an area in which a transmittance gradually increases from the low transmittance area.
However, Smedinga teaches a lighting device comprising a light shielding region with a gradient (see at least the abstract, Fig. 1 and paragraph [0007]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Nishimura as modified by Takata to include the teachings of Smedinga so that the transmission film includes an area in which a transmittance gradually increases from the low transmittance area for the purpose of creating a smooth transition (see at least paragraph [0007] of Smedinga).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2024/0004216 to Hirata et al. discloses an aerial display device comprising light shielding members that block direct viewing of the light source (see at least Fig. 6A and paragraph [0052], light shielding members 23 and 24).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM W BOOHER whose telephone number is (571)270-0573. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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 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.
/A.W.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
