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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 40 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection, as necessitated by amendment.
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 1-2, 5-16, 18, 22, 38-41, 49-55 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.
As to claims 1 and 40, the claims recite “a common virtual observer region at a common position for all generated segments of multiple images of the at least one spatial light modulation device at an equal distance from the light guiding device” which is unclear where, or how, the equal distance is determine (MPEP 2173.05(b)). Specifically, what distances are equal? Claims 1 and 40 are directed to the light guide and method as shown at least in Figures 9 and 10, however the figures and corresponding specification do not set forth what the distances are and how the distances are equal. The metes and bounds, and thus infringement, is unclear since what distance(s) is/are required to be equal appears relatively/subjectively defined. Examiner will understand that so long as the art provides images from the display/SLM to the wearer’s eye, such distance(s) is/are equal.
Claims 2, 5-16, 18, 22, 38-41, 49-55 are rejected as dependent upon claims 1 or 40.
As to claim 5, the claim recites “the light incidence position” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)).
As to claim 6, the claim recites “the light decoupling device is designed to be controllable” which is already recited in claim 1. Examiner will understand this feature as redundant to claim 1.
As to claim 18, the claim recites “at least one spatial light modulation device” which is already recited in claim 1. Examiner will understand this feature as redundant to claim 1.
As to claim 22, the claim recites “a virtual observer region” which is unclear if this is the same “common virtual observer region” from claim 1 or something other region (MPEP 2173.05(e)). Examiner will understand the regions to be the same.
As to claim 49, the claim recites “at least one spatial light modulation device” which is already recited in claim 1. Examiner will understand this feature as redundant to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim *** rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobschal et al. (US 2015/0205138 - Dobschal) in view of Natarajan et al. (US 6,821,457 - Natarajan; of record).
As to claim 1, Dobschal teaches a light guiding device (Dobschal Figs. 1-8 - 3; para. [0033]) for a display device comprising at least one spatial light modulation device (Dobschal Fig. 2 - 8; para. [0034]), the light guiding device is adapted to guide light (Dobschal Figs. 2-8) the light guide device comprising
a light guide (Dobschal Fig. 2 - 3);
a light coupling device (Dobschal Fig. 2 - 10; para. [0035]);
a light decoupling device (Dobschal Fig. 2 - 11; para. [0035]), the light propagates within the light guide via reflections at boundary surfaces of the light guide (Dobschal Fig. 2 - L1, L2, L3, 5, 6; para. [0036]), wherein the decoupling of the light out of the light guide by the light decoupling device is provided after a predetermined number or reflections of the light at boundary surfaces of the light guide (Dobschal para. [0007], [0055] - The outputting of the respective light bundle L1-L3 begins, at the latest, at the (n-m+1)th strike on the output grating), and the light decoupling device is divided into sections (Dobschal Figs. 3a-3 - 11; para. [0016], [0037]);
a common virtual observer region (Dobscahl Fig. 2 - 12, 13; Figs. 3a-e - 12, 13; Figs. 5a-e - 12, 13; Figs. 7a-3 - 12, 13) at a common position for all generated segments of multiple images of the at least one spatial light modulation device at an equal distance from the light guiding device is generated (Dobschal Fig. 2 - 8, 12, 13; Figs. 3a-e - L11-L15; Fig. 5a-e - L21-L25; Figs. 7a-e - L31-L35; para. [0036]-[0037]);
the light decoupling device comprises grating elements being arranged directly on opposing boundary surfaces of the light guide (Dobschal para. [0005] - which light guiding element has an input grating formed on the front or rear side and an output grating formed on the front or rear side);
and adjacent segments of the multiple images of the at least one spatial light modulation device are coupled out by the grating on one side and on an opposition side or at both boundary surfaces of the light guide (Dobschal Fig. 2 - L1, L2, L3, 5, 6, 11).
While Dobschal states the decoupling device (grating 11) can be on both the front and rear surfaces (Dobschal para. [0005]), Dobschal does not specify the gratings are on both the front and rear boundaries (5,6) and that the gratings are controllable sections.
In the same field of endeavor Natarajan teaches light decoupling devices having controllable gratings on boundary surfaces and alternately coupling out light by the grating elements on one side or an opposition side, or at both boundary surfaces of a waveguide (Natarajan Figs. 23-24; Fig. 25 - Output HOE; Fig. 26 - switchable HOEs; col. 18:25-35; col. 20:11-15 - Similarly, such systems could advantageously include one or a plurality of outputs and that these outputs may be disposed on either side of the substrate).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide controllable diffraction gratings since, as taught by Natarajan, such devices allow for creating a controllable output waveguide to tailor input light to an output location (Natarajan col. 6:15-17; col. 18:25-32; col. 20:23).
As to claim 2, Dobschal in view of Natarajan teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Dobschal/Natarajan further if the light incident on the light guide device is formed as a light bundle or a light field having multiple or a plurality of light beams, a decoupling out of the light guide is provided for the light beams after an equal number of reflections at the boundary surfaces of the light guide in each for all light beams of the light bundle or light field (Dobschal para. [0007]; Natarajan Fig. 26; col. 19:35-67; col. 20:1-10).
As to claim 5, Dobschal in view of Natarajan teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Dobschal/Natarajan teaches the light decoupling device is arranged on the light guide in such a way that the position of the light decoupling device corresponds to the light incident position (Dobschal Figs. 2 - 10, 11; Natarajan Figs. 25-26), which the light reaches on one of the boundary surfaces of the light after a predetermined number of reflections (Dobschal Figs. 2 - 10, 11; Natarajan Figs. 25-26).
As to claim 6, Dobschal in view of Natarajan teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Natarajan further teaches the light decoupling device is designed to be controllable (Natarajan Figs. 23-26; col. 17:62-67; col. 18:1-8), where the light decoupling device is controllable in such a way that in a driving state of the light decoupling device, light is coupled out after a predetermined number of reflections and in another driving state of the light decoupling device, the light propagates further in the light guide (Natarajan Figs. 23-26; col. 17:62-67; col. 18:1-8).
As to claim 7, Dobschal in view of Natarajan teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Natarajan further teaches the light decoupling device is divided into sections (Natarajan Figs. 25-26; col. 18:25-30), where the light decoupling device is sectionally designed to be controllable (Natarajan Figs. 25-26; col. 18:25-30), where the light decoupling device is controllable in such a way that the number of reflections of the light at the boundary surfaces of the light guide is changeable by a driving state of a section of the light decoupling device (Natarajan Figs. 25-26; col. 18:25-30), which corresponds to a light incidence position which the light reaches after a number of reflections (Natarajan Figs. 25-26; col. 18:25-30), and by another driving state of a further section of the light decoupling device, which corresponds to the light incidence position which the light reaches after a further number of reflections (Natarajan Figs. 25-26; col. 18:25-30; col. 20:11-15).
As to claim 8, Dobschal in view of Natarajan teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Natarajan further teaches the light coupling device comprises at least one grating element, or at least one mirror element (Dobschal Fig. 2 - 10; para. [0035]; Natarajan Fig. 20 - switchable HOE; Fig. 21 - input HOE).
As to claim 9, Dobschal in view of Natarajan teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 8, and Natarajan further teaches a grating constant teaches the light coupling device is a grating element or mirror element, the light having an angle of incidence βin (Natarajan Fig. 19; Fig. 20; col. 17:40-55) and an resulting angle of light propagation βout (Natarajan Fig. 19; Fig. 20 - θC; col. 17:40-55), whereby the light propagation within the waveguide undergoes TIR, and thus necessarily meets sinβout = λ/g + sinβin as per the physics of diffraction gratings (Natarajan Fig. 19; Fig. 20; col. 17:40-55).
As to claim 10, Dobschal in view of Natarajan teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Natarajan further teaches the light decoupling device comprises at least two grating elements (Natarajan Fig. 26).
As to claim 11, Dobschal in view of Natarajan teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 10, and Natarajan further teaches the light decoupling device comprises at least one controllable grating element (Natarajan Fig. 26 - switchable HOEs).
As to claim 12, Dobschal in view of Natarajan teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 10, and Natarajan further teaches the light decoupling device comprises at least one passive grating element in conjunction with a switch element (Natarajan Fig. 19; col. 17:29-36).
As to claim 13, Dobschal in view of Natarajan teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 11, and Natarajan further teaches the at least one controllable grating element of the light decoupling device extends over a predefined area of the light guide (Natarajan Fig. 26).
As to claim 14, Dobschal in view of Natarajan teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Dobschal further teaches the light guide is formed at least in sections a curved at least in one direction (Dobschal Fig. 2 - 3; para. [0006]).
As to claim 16, Dobschal in view of Natarajan teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Natarajan further teaches a light deflection angle of the light decoupling device is opposite to a light deflection angle of the light decoupling device so that a light beam incident perpendicularly on the surface of the light guide also exits perpendicularly from the light guide (Natarajan Fig. 26 - Io, I1).
As to claim 18, Dobschal in view of Natarajan teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Dobschal teaches display device comprising an illumination device having at least one light source (Dobschal Fig. 2 - 8; para. [0034]), at least one spatial light modulation device (Dobschal Fig. 2 - 8; para. [0034]), an optical system (Dobschal Fig. 2 - 9; para. [0034]).
As to claim 22, Dobschal in view of Natarajan teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Dobschal teaches the light guide of the light guiding device is curved at least in sections as a hollow cylinder (Dobschal Fig. 2 - 3, 5, 6; para. [0006], [0034]), where a virtual observer region is generatable in a region of a center point of a circular arc of the hollow cylinder (Dobschal Fig. 2 - 13, 12, 5, 6; para. [0034]).
As to claim 38, Dobschal in view of Natarajan teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 18, and Dobschal/Natarajan further teaches at least one controllable grating element of the light decoupling device of the light guiding device comprises at least one lens function (Dobschal Fig. 2 - 11; para. [0045]; Natarajan col. 24:20-24).
As to claim 39, Dobschal in view of Natarajan teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 18, and Dobschal further teaches a HMD having two display devices assigned to left and right eyes (Dobschal Fig. 1; para. [0060])
As to claim 40, Dobschal teaches a method for generating a reconstructed scene by a spatial light modulation device and a light guide (Dobschal Figs. 1-8) comprising
the spatial light modulation device modulates incident light with required information of the scene (Dobschal Fig. 2 - 8; para. [0034]);
the light modulated by the spatial light modulation device is coupled into the light guide by a light coupling device (Dobschal Fig. 2 - 10; para. [0035]);
the light is decoupled out of the light guide by a light decoupling device (Dobschal Fig. 2 - 11; para. [0035]), after a predetermined number of reflections at boundary surfaces of the light guide (Dobschal para. [0007], [0055] - The outputting of the respective light bundle L1-L3 begins, at the latest, at the (n-m+1)th strike on the output grating);
the light decoupling device is divided into sections (Dobschal Figs. 3a-3 - 11; para. [0016], [0037]);
a common virtual observer region (Dobscahl Fig. 2 - 12, 13; Figs. 3a-e - 12, 13; Figs. 5a-e - 12, 13; Figs. 7a-3 - 12, 13) at a common position for all generated segments of multiple images of the at least one spatial light modulation device at an equal distance from the light guiding device (Dobschal Fig. 2 - 8, 12, 13; Figs. 3a-e - L11-L15; Fig. 5a-e - L21-L25; Figs. 7a-e - L31-L35; para. [0036]-[0037]);
the light is coupled out by grating elements being arranged directly on opposing boundary surfaces of the light guide (Dobschal para. [0005] - which light guiding element has an input grating formed on the front or rear side and an output grating formed on the front or rear side);
and adjacent segments of the multiple images of the at least one spatial light modulation device are coupled out by the grating on one side and on an opposition side or at both boundary surfaces of the light guide (Dobschal Fig. 2 - L1, L2, L3, 5, 6, 11).
While Dobschal states the decoupling device (grating 11) can be on both the front and rear surfaces (Dobschal para. [0005]), Dobschal does not specify the gratings are on both the front and rear boundaries (5,6) and that the gratings are controllable sections.
In the same field of endeavor Natarajan teaches light decoupling devices having controllable gratings on boundary surfaces and alternately coupling out light by the grating elements on one side or an opposition side, or at both boundary surfaces of a waveguide (Natarajan Figs. 23-24; Fig. 25 - Output HOE; Fig. 26 - switchable HOEs; col. 18:25-35; col. 20:11-15 - Similarly, such systems could advantageously include one or a plurality of outputs and that these outputs may be disposed on either side of the substrate).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide controllable diffraction gratings since, as taught by Natarajan, such devices allow for creating a controllable output waveguide to tailor input light to an output location (Natarajan col. 6:15-17; col. 18:25-32; col. 20:23).
As to claim 41, Dobschal in view of Natarajan teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Dobschal teaches an image of the spatial light modulation device or a multiple image of the spatial light modulation device composed of segments is generated (Dobschal Fig. 2 - 8, L1, L2, L3; Figs. 3a-e - L11-L15; Fig. 5a-e - L21-L25; Figs. 7a-e - L31-L35).
As to claim 50, Dobschal in view of Natarajan teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Dobschal teaches the light incident angle and light guide allow for total internal reflection and the light guide is curved (Dobschal Fig. 2 - L1, L2, L3, 3) and thus as per the physics, necessarily satisfies γ = 2*(β - asin(sin(β)r1/r2)).
As to claim 52, Dobschal in view of Natarajan teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Natarajan further teaches the light decoupling device is controllable in such a way that the number of reflections of the light at the boundary surfaces of the light guide is changeable by at least one (Natarajan Fig. 26).
As to claim 53, Dobschal in view of Natarajan teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Natarajan further teaches at least one grating element at one of the two opposing boundary surfaces is a reflective grating element and at least one grating element at another of the two opposing boundary surfaces is a transmissive grating element (Natarajan Figs. 11a, 11b; Fig. 26; col. 20:11-24).
As to claim 54, Dobschal in view of Natarajan teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Natarajan further teaches the grating elements are designed to be controllable between at least an ON state and an OFF state (Natarajan Figs. 23-24; Fig. 26).
As to claim 55, Dobschal in view of Natarajan teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 54, and Natarajan further teaches light propagating in the interior of the light guide is decoupled at one of the grating elements by setting this grating element to an ON state and light propagating in the interior of the light guide is not decoupled at one of the grating elements by setting this grating element to an OFF state (Natarajan Figs. 23-24, Fig. 26; col. 17:62-67; col. 18:1-8).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobschal and Natarajan as applied to claims 1, 14 above, and further in view of Brown et al. (US 9,733,475 - Brown; of record).
As to claim 15, Dobschal in view of Natarajan teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 14, and Dobschal teaches the light guide includes hollow cylinder sections (Dobschal para. [0034]), but doesn’t specify the boundary surfaces of the light guide are formed having differing cylindrical radius.
In the same field of endeavor Brown teaches a light guide includes a hollow cylinder in sections (Brown Figs. 4-6 - 40; col. 6:48-57), where boundary surfaces of the light guide are formed as sections of the hollow cylinder having differing radius (Brown Figs. 4-6 - 40; col. 6:48-57). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide the light guide with cylindrical sections with different radii since, as taught by Brown, this allows for elliptical shapes and/or convex/concave surface with different radii (Brown Figs. 4-6 - 40; col. 6:48-57).
Claims 49 and 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobschal and Natarajan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Futterer et al. (US 2013/0222384 - Futterer; of record).
As to claim 49, Dobschal in view of Natarajan teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Dobschal teaches an illumination device having at least one light source (Dobschal Fig. 2 - 8; para. [0034]), at least one spatial light modulation device (Dobschal Fig. 2 - 8; para. [0034]), an optical system (Dobschal Fig. 2 - 9; para. [0034]), but doesn’t specify a coupling position of light from the spatial light modulation device on the light guiding device is displaceable on the light coupling device by a light deflection device.
In the same field of endeavor Futterer teaches a display device with an illumination device (Futterer Fig. 4 - 110; Fig. 26 - 260), at least one spatial light modulation device (Futterer Fig. 4 - 200; Fig. 26 - 200), an optical system (Futterer Fig. 4 - 910, 510, 520; Fig. 26 - 800), and a light guiding device (Futterer Fig. 26 - 1100), and a coupling position of light from the spatial light modulation device on the light guiding device is displaceable on the light coupling device by a light deflection device (Futterer Fig. 26 - 260, 400, 1110; para. [0281] - as discussed, light from modulator (260) is displaceable on the light guide coupling device (1110) by light deflection device (400)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide a deflecting device as claimed since, as taught by Futterer, such devices are well known in the art for the purpose of scanning the image light to positions on the light coupling device of the light guide (Futterer Fig. 6 - 400, 1110; para. [0281]).
As to claim 51, Dobschal in view of Natarajan teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and but doesn’t specify a coupling position of a light bundle on the light guide is displaceable within boundaries of the dimensions of the light coupling device.
In the same field of endeavor Futterer teaches a coupling position of a light bundle on the light guide is displaceable within boundaries of the dimensions of the light coupling device (Futterer Fig. 26 - 260, 400, 1110; para. [0281] - as discussed, light from modulator (260) is displaceable within boundaries the light guide coupling device (1110) by light deflection device (400)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide a deflecting device as claimed since, as taught by Futterer, such devices are well known in the art for the purpose of scanning the image light to positions on the light coupling device of the light guide (Futterer Fig. 6 - 400, 1110; para. [0281]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Waldern et al. (US 10,890,707; 2019/0129085); Dobschal et al. (US 9,470,896); Kubota (US 9,250,373; 2013/0063815); Wang (US 8,665,178); Robbins et al. (US 8,233,204); Nobis et al. (US 2022/0019091); Travis (US 2017/0115487) are cited as additional examples of light guiding display devices.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY W WILKES whose telephone number is (571)270-7540. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 (Pacific).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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.
/ZACHARY W WILKES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 March 5, 2026