DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, and 6-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by White, US 2018/0109756.
1. White teaches a glasses-free AR display device comprising:
a half mirror disposed upright on a floor [two-way mirror 2, Figs. 7-9, paras. 73, 99-107];
a darkroom-like structure provided behind the half mirror [area behind mirror 2; i.e. the area to the right of mirror 2, Figs. 7-9, paras. 99-107];
a display disposed in the darkroom-like structure obliquely with respect to a surface of the half mirror [display 3, Figs. 7-9, paras. 99-107];
an illumination located in front of the half mirror and configured to illuminate a user toward the display [module lighting, Figs. 7, 9, para. 108]; and
a video controller configured to receive a video signal [video signal from camera, or video of operator; Fig. 30, paras. 99, 106] and cause the display to display a video [display 3, including processor and displaying para. 107; also see paras. 99-106].
2. White teaches the glasses-free AR display device according to claim 1, further comprising:
a camera installed at a position plane-symmetrical to the display with respect to the surface of the half mirror and capturing the user reflected in the half mirror, wherein the video controller acquires a video signal from the camera to transmit it [camera 6 positioned symmetrically (e.g. at a 45 degree angle to the mirror; display 3 is also at a 45 degree angle) to capture reflected image of user, Figs. 7-9, paras. 99-106, 108].
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai et al., US 2016/0026039.
5 (from 1). White is silent on antireflection means. Sakai teaches a display system wherein an antireflection film having a moth-eye structure is stuck on a front surface of the display, a rear surface of the half mirror [paras. 236, 343], or both the front surface and the rear surface.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the references, using a moth eye structure as an efficient way to dampen reflections from ambient light and improve the quality of the composite image as viewed by the user.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Timothy R Newlin whose telephone number is (571)270-3015. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 Mountain Time.
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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
/TIMOTHY R NEWLIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights