DETAILED ACTION
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.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/16/26, 02/18/26, 04/02/26, 04/30/26, 05/01/26, 05/15/26, 05/22/26, 06/15/26 comply with provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the examiner considered the information disclosure statements.
Reopening of Prosecution After Appeal Brief
In view of the appeal brief filed on 04/16/26, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. A new ground of rejection is set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/PINPING SUN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Applicant first argument states "Appellant adequately traversed this official notice in the Response to the Non-Final Office Action by specifically pointing out that (1) the alleged fact is not so notoriously well known that it is indisputably true, (2) Yamada ¶390 does not support the noticed fact, and (3) Yamada's optical system includes a plano-convex lens with condensing power that Yamada does not compare to the half mirror" and "The Examiner's response in the Final Office Action, citing general optical formulas relating curvature to condensing power, does not satisfy this requirement. The noticed fact was not that curvature relates to condensing power; the noticed fact was that it is common and known to configure the half mirror to have greater condensing power than other members of the optical system. The Examiner has provided no documentary evidence that this specific configuration is common knowledge in the art."
Appellant's argument is moot in view of the new ground of rejection. The rejection set forth in this Office Action does not rely on official notice, nor does it rely on 35 U.S.C. § 103 with respect to claim 1. Claim 1 is now rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Yamada. The limitation "having a larger light condensing power than the other members of the optical system" is not supplied by official notice; it is inherent in the structure disclosed in Yamada's FIG. 4 embodiment. In the FIG. 4 embodiment, the optical system consists of reflective linear polarizer 200, retarders 600 and 700, and half mirror 300. Half mirror 300 is the only element in that system having a curved reflective surface. It is a fundamental and undisputed physical relationship that condensing power C = 2/R for a reflective surface, and that polarizers and waveplates, which act on polarization state and phase rather than ray convergence, possess no condensing power. Accordingly, in the FIG. 4 optical system, half mirror 300 necessarily has a larger light condensing power than every other member of that optical system. This is not a question of what a skilled artisan would find well-known; it is a question of what the disclosed structure inherently is.
Argument’s second argument states, "Nowhere does Yamada disclose or suggest that the half mirror 300 has a larger light condensing power than this plano-convex lens" and "The Examiner's analysis is incomplete because Yamada's Example 1 explicitly includes a plano-convex lens as part of the optical system, an element with condensing power that is separate from the half mirror 300. Indeed, the Examiner's own rejection of claim 3 stated that Yamada's 'optical system has only half mirror 300, no other lens,' which directly contradicts Yamada's Example 1 disclosure of a plano-convex lens as part of the optical system." And "Because Yamada does not disclose that the half mirror has a larger light condensing power than the plano-convex lens, the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness for the limitation 'having a larger light condensing power than the other members of the optical system' as recited by claim 1."
Appellant's argument is not persuasive because the plano-convex lens is not a member of the optical system of the FIG. 4 embodiment upon which the rejection is based. Yamada expressly enumerates the components of the FIG. 4 image display device — polarizer A100, reflective linear polarizer 200, first λ/4 plate 600, half mirror 300, second λ/4 plate 700, polarizer B400, and image display element 500 (¶[0334]) — and expressly defines the optical element as formed of those members (¶[0335]). No plano-convex lens is included, and the ray-path description of FIG. 4 (¶¶[0396]–[0407]) traces the display light through only those elements. The plano-convex lens cited by Appellant appears only in Example 1 as a molding form from which the films are "peeled off" (¶[0447]) and as a substrate for lamination (¶[0467]); it is not among the members of the optical system shown in FIG. 4 and relied upon in the rejection. Claim 1 requires comparison only to "the other members of the optical system" as mapped, and within the FIG. 4 optical system the half mirror 300 is the sole element having a curved reflective surface and thus the only member possessing any condensing power. Accordingly, the half mirror necessarily has a larger light condensing power than the other members of that optical system, and the Examiner's statement in the rejection of claim 3 that the optical system "has only half mirror 300, no other lens" is fully consistent with Yamada's own definition of the FIG. 4 embodiment.
Applicant’s third argument states "This reasoning improperly uses the claimed invention as a roadmap. The ability to select a curvature radius does not teach or suggest that one should or must select a curvature resulting in the half mirror having greater condensing power than other members of the optical system" and "Here, the Examiner has not articulated any rationale from Yamada or the prior art for why a skilled artisan would configure the half mirror to have greater condensing power than other optical members" and "There is no nexus between ghost suppression and configuring the half mirror to have greater condensing power than other members of the optical system. The Examiner has impermissibly supplied the motivation for achieving the claimed condensing power relationship from the claims themselves, rather than from any teaching in Yamada... This is the hallmark of impermissible hindsight reconstruction."
Appellant's argument is moot in view of the new ground of rejection. The hindsight doctrine, and the requirement of articulated reasoning with rational underpinning under KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), govern rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Claim 1 is no longer rejected under § 103. Because the rejection is one of anticipation under § 102(a)(1), no motivation, rationale, or reason to modify or combine is required. MPEP § 2131. Further, the rejection no longer relies on the "could select a curvature" reasoning to which Appellant objects. The rejection does not posit that a skilled artisan would select any particular curvature; it establishes that the device as disclosed in FIG. 4 — wherein the half mirror is the only member possessing condensing power at all — necessarily satisfies the claimed relationship. Where the sole condensing member of an optical system is the semitransmissive mirror, that mirror inherently has a larger condensing power than the remaining members, whose condensing power is zero. Appellant's arguments concerning the absence of a nexus to ghost suppression are likewise inapplicable, as no motivation statement is required for or relied upon in the anticipation rejection.
Applicant’s fourth argument states, "The secondary references, Wheelwright (applied to claims 6, 7, and 12), Hayata (applied to claims 10 and 11), and Yamamoto (applied to claims 13-15 and 17-20), were applied only to supply limitations of the dependent claims and do not cure the deficiency in the rejection of claim 1, from which all dependent claims depend. For at least the reasons expressed above with respect to claim 1, the rejections of claims 2-20 should also be reversed."
Appellant argues only that the dependent claims are allowable based on the alleged deficiency in the rejection of claim 1. Because the rejection of claim 1 is proper for the reasons stated above, the rejections of claims 2–20 are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-5, 8, 9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamada (US 20230098100).
Regarding claim 1, Yamada teaches a display device (fig. 4) comprising, a display panel (image display element 500) configured to emit display light; and an optical system (200, 600, 300, 700) configured to form an image of the display light (¶336, observed as a display image), wherein the optical system (200, 600 ,300, 700) includes a reflective polarizer (reflective linear polarizer 200), a first retarder (700) located between the display panel (500) and the reflective polarizer (200), a second retarder (600) located between the first retarder (700) and the reflective polarizer (200), and a first semitransmissive mirror (300) located between the first retarder (700) and the second retarder (600), the first semitransmissive mirror (300) including a first reflective surface (half mirror 300) and having a larger light condensing power than the other members of the optical system (Yamada's explicit teaching on curvature selection applies a fundamental optical principle: the condensing power (C) of a mirror is inversely proportional to its radius of curvature (C = 2/R). By selecting a smaller radius of curvature for the first reflective surface, its condensing power is made greater than that of the other optical members (i.e. mirrors) having larger radii of curvature. The application of these optical properties is precisely what Yamada teaches, and the relationship between curvature and condensing power is inherent in the field.
Condensing power and focal length have an inverse relationship: a lens with a shorter focal length (smaller radius of curvature) has higher condensing power, while a lens with a longer focal length (larger radius of curvature) has lower condensing power. This relationship is expressed by the following formulas:
Focal Length = radius of curvature / 2; Condensing Power = 1 / Focal Length = 2 / radius of curvature. A polarizer (which filters light by polarization) and waveplates (which introduce a phase shift between orthogonal polarization components of light) do not have condensing power. As further evidence, Figure 4 is a ray-trace diagram; although the polarizer 200 and the λ/4 waveplate appear curved, they do not exhibit condensing power in the figure — only element 300 exhibits this behavior.
PNG
media_image1.png
586
814
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The first reflective surface is concave and has a greater curvature than the other elements in the optical system, which are considered flat with effectively zero curvature. A polarizer (which filters light by polarization) and waveplates (which introduce a phase shift between orthogonal polarization components of light) do not have condensing power. As further evidence, Figure 4 is a ray-trace diagram; although the polarizer 200 and the λ/4 waveplate appear curved, they do not exhibit condensing power in the figure — only element 300 exhibits this behavior.)
Regarding claim 2, Yamada teaches the display device according to claim 1, wherein the first reflective surface (300, shown in fig. 4 above, optical system has only half mirror 300, no other lens with curvatures) comprises a concave surface having a curvature larger than that of the other members of the optical system.
Regarding claim 3, Yamada teaches the display device according to claim 1, wherein optical system does not comprise any lenses, except for the first semitransmissive mirror (300, shown in fig. 4, over optical system has only half mirror 300, no other lens).
Regarding claim 4, Yamada teaches the display device according to claim 1, wherein the optical system further comprises the first semitransmissive mirror (300) as a only member configured to condense the display light (The application of these optical properties is precisely what Yamada teaches, and the relationship between curvature and condensing power is inherent in the field.
Condensing power and focal length have an inverse relationship: a lens with a shorter focal length (smaller radius of curvature) has higher condensing power, while a lens with a longer focal length (larger radius of curvature) has lower condensing power. This relationship is expressed by the following formulas: Focal Length = radius of curvature / 2; Condensing Power = 1 / Focal Length = 2 / radius of curvature. A polarizer (which filters light by polarization) and waveplates (which introduce a phase shift between orthogonal polarization components of light) do not have condensing power. As further evidence, Figure 4 is a ray-trace diagram; although the polarizer 200 and the λ/4 waveplate appear curved, they do not exhibit condensing power in the figure — only element 300 exhibits this behavior.).
Regarding claim 5, Yamada teaches the display device according to claim 1, further comprising air being between the first retarder (700) and the second retarder (600, shown in fig. 4).
Regarding claim 8, Yamada teaches the display device according to claim 1, wherein the first retarder (700) is located on a surface of the first semitransmissive mirror (300, shown in fig. 4).
Regarding claim 9, Yamada teaches the display device according to claim 1, wherein the second retarder (600) is located on a surface of the first semitransmissive mirror (300, as shown in fig. 4).
Regarding claim 16, Yamada teaches a vehicle (fig. 4, is a general use device, i.e., used for a vehicle), comprising, the display device according to claim 1(fig. 4).
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 6, 7, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (US 20230098100) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wheelwright et al. (US 10,955,675).
Regarding claim 6, Yamada teaches the invention as set forth above but does not specifically teach a third retarder located between the display panel and the reflective polarizer. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Wheelwright teaches the display device (fig. 5B), further comprising, a third retarder (optical retarder 512) located between the display panel (display element 410) and the reflective polarizer (col. 15, lines 59-65, reflector 516 having polarizing reflective coating). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Yamada with a third retarder located between the display panel and the reflective polarizer of Wheelwright, for the purpose of output and image light (col. 18, lines 43-50).
Regarding claim 7, Yamada teaches the invention as set forth above but does not specifically teach comprising, a fourth retarder located between the display panel and the reflective polarizer. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Wheelwright teaches the display device (fig. 5B), further comprising, a fourth retarder (col. 11, lines 10-15, emission surface 410 includes a circular polarizer (not shown, e.g., a linear polarizer and/or an optical retarder, such as a quarter wave plate) located between the display panel (410) and the reflective polarizer (516; col. 15, lines 59-65, reflector 516 having polarizing reflective coating). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Yamada with a fourth retarder located between the display panel and the reflective polarizer of Wheelwright, for the purpose of output and image light (col. 18, lines 43-50).
Regarding claim 12, Yamada teaches the invention as set forth above but does not specifically teach the optical system further comprises a second semitransmissive mirror. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Wheelwright teaches the display device (fig. 5B), wherein the optical system further comprises a second semitransmissive mirror (50/50 mirror 515). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Yamada with the optical system further comprises a second semitransmissive mirror of Wheelwright, for the purpose of output and image light (col. 18, lines 43-50).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (US 20230098100) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hayata et al. (US 20250224087).
Regarding claim 10, Yamada teaches the invention a set forth above but does not specifically teach the first semitransmissive mirror has a Fresnel shape. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Hayata teaches the display device (fig. 42), wherein the first semitransmissive mirror has a Fresnel shape (¶599, half mirror surface as a Fresnel type). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Yamada with the first semitransmissive mirror has a Fresnel shape of Hayata, for the purpose of displaying the virtual image with less optical interference noise (¶599).
Regarding claim 11, Yamada teaches the invention as set forth above but does not specifically teach the first semitransmissive mirror comprises a holographic optical element. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Hayata teaches the display device (fig. 42), wherein the first semitransmissive mirror comprises a holographic optical element (¶599, half mirror surface as a hologram type). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Yamada with the first semitransmissive mirror comprises a holographic optical element of Hayata, for the purpose of displaying the virtual image with less optical interference noise (¶599).
Claims 13-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (US 20230098100) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamamoto (US 20250189785).
Regarding claim 13, Yamada teaches the invention as set forth above but does not specifically teach comprising, an illuminator configured to illuminate a opposite surface of the display panel opposite to a display surface of the display panel. However, in a similar field of endeavor, the display device (fig. 3), further comprising: an illuminator (light source device 11) configured to illuminate a opposite surface of the display panel (LCD 12) opposite to a display surface (shown in fig. 3) of the display panel (12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Yamada with an illuminator configured to illuminate a opposite surface of the display panel opposite to a display surface of the display panel of Yamamoto, for the purpose of display an image (¶79).
Regarding claim 14, Yamada in view of Yamamoto teaches the invention as set forth above and Yamamoto further teaches comprising, a controller (¶29, controller, processor, or computer) configured to control at least one of an image displayed on the display panel and the illuminator (controlling where images are display on first region r1 and where images are display on second region r2). Motivation to combine is the same as in claim 13.
Regarding claim 15, Yamada in view of Yamamoto teaches the invention as set forth above and Yamamoto further teaches a vehicle (¶69, vehicle), comprising, the display device (fig. 3). Motivation to combine is the same as in claim 13.
Regarding claim 17, Yamada teaches the invention as set forth above but does not specifically teach a camera configured to communicate with the display panel of the display device. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Yamamoto teaches a display system (fig. 3 and ¶69), comprising, the display device (fig. 3 and ¶69); and a camera (camera 90) configured to communicate with the display panel of the display device (fig. 3, and ¶138, The input information includes detection signals from the various sensors illustrated in FIG. 10, information about the results of processing the detection signals by the control unit 100, and the like. The input information includes, for example, information about objects in the actual scenery detected based on the images from the camera 90 and alert information and navigation information to be superimposed on the objects.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the system of Yamada with a camera configured to communicate with the display panel of the display device of Yamamoto, for the purpose of displaying an image (¶79).
Regarding claim 18, Yamada in view of Yamamoto teaches the invention as set forth above and Yamamoto further teaches a vehicle (¶69, vehicle), comprising, the display system (fig. 3). Motivation to combine is the same as in claim 17.
Regarding claim 19, Yamada teaches the invention as set forth above but does not specifically teach an imaging device, comprising, the display device. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Yamamoto teaches an imaging device (camera 90), comprising, the display device (fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Yamada with the display device of Yamamoto, for the purpose of displaying an image (¶79).
Regarding claim 20, Yamada in view of Yamamoto teaches the invention as set forth above and Yamamoto further teaches a vehicle (¶69, vehicle), comprising, the imaging device (90). Motivation is the a same as in claim 19.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yamada et al. (US 20240411075) discloses a display device but does not disclose all the limitation of claims above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY DUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-0534. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached at (571)270-1284. 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.
/HENRY DUONG/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872 07/14/26
Prosecution Insights