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 § 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.
Claims 1-9 are 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 1 recites the limitation "the other polarized wave" in lines 20-21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 3, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frayne (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0094562 “Frayne”) in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0285904 “Kim”).
Regarding claim 1, Frayne discloses an air floating video display apparatus (Figures 1 and 2) configured to display an air floating video, the air floating video display apparatus comprising:
a video display apparatus (Figure 1 element 110, see description in Paragraph [0044]);
a retroreflector (130) arranged so as to face the video display apparatus (Figure 1) and having a ¼ wave plate provided on a retroreflection surface (Figure 11 “quarter waveplate”, Paragraph [0063]); and
a polarization separation member (120, see description in Paragraph [0052] of a polarizing beamsplitter) arranged at a predetermined angle with respect to the video display apparatus and the retroreflector, in a space connecting the video display apparatus and the retroreflector (Figures 1 and 2), wherein the video display apparatus includes a light source apparatus and a liquid crystal display panel as a video source (Paragraph [0046]),
and wherein a video light of a specific polarized wave emitted from the liquid crystal display panel enters the polarization separation member at a specific incident angle, passes through the polarization separation member, is reflected by the retroreflector, and passes through the ¼ wave plate to be subjected to polarization conversion into a video light of another polarized wave, the video light of the other polarized wave is reflected by the polarization separation member, and the air floating video that is a real image is displayed at a predetermined position based on the reflected video light (Figures 1 and 2, wherein the retroreflector 130 is configured with the ¼ wave plate as discussed in the description of Figure 11).
Frayne fails to disclose the housing configured to store a video display with the retroreflector arranged outside the housing. Kim, however, teaches a housing (Figures 14-16 element 1411) configured to store the video display apparatus (Figure 16) wherein the retroreflector is arranged outside the housing (see Figure 14 element 1433).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a housing to store the video display apparatus wherein the retroreflector is arranged outside the housing. One would have been motivated to arrange the housing as proposed to provide environmental protection to the display according to conventional means (Kim: Paragraph [0174]).
Regarding claim 3, while Frayne illustrates the beam angle as 45 degrees (see Figure 2 element 1), Frayne fails to explicitly disclose the beam angle as within the proposed range. Kim, however, teaches the light entrance angle as within the proposed range (Paragraph [0126]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the light entrance angle to be within the proposed range of 45 to 60 degrees. One would have been motivated to form the angle as proposed for best efficiency of the beam splitter and/or to accommodate the viewer’s visual line (Kim: Paragraphs [0126]-[0128]).
Regarding claim 6, Frayne as modified by Kim discloses the polarization separation member and the retroreflector as supported by a frame with respect to the housing in which the video display apparatus is stored (Kim: Figure 14 elements 1431 and 1413).
Claims 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frayne in view of Kim and in further view of Haseltine (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0255017).
Regarding claim 2, Frayne fails to explicitly disclose the specific polarization of the polarized light that enters the polarization separation member. Haseltine, however, teaches video light that enters the polarization separation member is P-polarized light (Haseltine: Paragraph [0065] gives the option of either S or P-polarized entering the polarization separation member).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the display apparatus such that P-polarized light enters the polarization separation member. One would have been motivated to configure the display apparatus as proposed to maximize light transmitted from the display to the viewer (Haseltine: Paragraph [0063]).
Regarding claim 9, Frayne as modified by Haseltine discloses the video light from the liquid crystal display panel as S-polarized light, the air floating video display apparatus further comprising a half wave plate configured to convert the S-polarized video light from the liquid crystal display panel into the P-polarized light for entering the polarization separation member (Haseltine: Paragraph [0065]; Figure 6 element 610).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frayne in view of Kim and in further view of Zhang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0201065 “Zhang”).
Regarding claim 4, Frayne fails to explicitly disclose the specific incident angle at which the video light enters the polarization separation member as Brewster’s angle. Zhang, however, teaches an analogous display apparatus in which the video light enters the polarization separation member at Brewster’s angle (Zhang: Paragraph [0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the video light to enter the polarization separation member at Brewster’s angle. One would have been motivated to form the angle as proposed to maximize transmission efficiency of the polarization separation member (Zhang: Paragraph [0049]).
Regarding claim 5, Frayne fails to disclose the claimed configuration of the display and display housing. Kim, however, teaches a height of a surface on a front side of the housing in which the video display apparatus is stored corresponding to a side where the air floating video is formed is made larger (Kim: Figure 23 corresponding to right side of 2301) than a height of a surface on a back side (corresponding to left side of 2301) such that a plane on which the formed air floating video is displayed is made to be a vertical plane (Figure 23 see image forming plane S.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the height of the surface on a front side of the housing in which the video display apparatus is stored corresponding to a side where the air floating video is formed is made to be larger than a height of a surface on a back side such that a plane on which the air floating video is displayed is made to be a vertical plane. One would have been motivated to arrange the display as proposed to accommodate the display for a particular application, such as an in-vehicle display (Kim: Figure 23).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frayne in view of Kim and in further view of Yamada et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0369409 “Yamada”).
Regarding claim 7, Frayne discloses the polarization separation member as a reflection-type polarization plate (Paragraph [0052]), but fails to explicitly disclose the polarization plate as formed on a glass substrate. Yamada, however, teaches an analogous polarization separation member formed in an analogous display having a reflection-type polarization plate formed on a glass substrate (Paragraph [0104]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the reflection type polarization plate on a glass substrate to provide a rigid member for forming the polarizing layer and additional layers of the beamsplitter according to conventional means.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frayne in view of Kim and in further view of Rieger (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0103392) and Sugiyama et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0201043 “Sugiyama”).
Regarding claim 8, Frayne fails to disclose the surface roughness of the retroreflection surface and the details of the light source apparatus.
Rieger, however, teaches a display incorporating a retroreflective element having a surface roughness adapted for display optimization (Rieger: Paragraph [0070]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the surface roughness to avoid Moire-pattern effects while maintaining a ratio between a blur amount of the air floating video and a pixel size of the video display apparatus as equal to or less than 40%. One would have been motivated to minimize blur amount according to a result effective variable to maintain clarity of display while preventing moire defects (Rieger: Paragraphs [0070]-[0071]).
Further, Sugiyama teaches a light source apparatus in an analogous display in which the light source apparatus includes:
a point-like or planar light source (Figure 10 element 14);
an optical element (15) configured to reduce a divergence angle of light from the light source;
a polarization converter (21) configured to align the light from the light source to polarization of a specific direction; and
a light guide body (17) having a reflection surface (172a/172b) configured to propagate the light from the light source to the liquid crystal panel (52), and
wherein a video light flux of the video light from the liquid crystal display panel is controlled based on a shape and a surface roughness of the reflection surface (Figure 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the light source apparatus as proposed to benefit from a light source having high lighting efficiency and high uniformity (Sugiyama: Paragraphs [0006]-[0007]).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL H CALEY whose telephone number is (571)272-2286. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm.
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, Allana Bidder can be reached at 571-272-5560. 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.
/MICHAEL H CALEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights