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 .
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of the amendment filed 12/01/2025. Claims 12-13, 17, and 20-24 are amended and claims 12-24 and 27 are examined herein.
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 12-19 and 27 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 12 recites “wherein the display unit corresponding to the lens and the pinhole provides one parallax image”. The metes and bounds of the language cannot be determined by a person having ordinary skill in the art. Applicant discloses (Fig. 19) a system in which there are plural lenses and plural pinholes transmitting plural portions of a single displayed image such that parallax is formed. However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that a display and a single aperture provides parallax without an aperture array and without a structural distinction to the display itself. In Claim 12, there is a pinhole and a lens and a display providing a parallax image though the open transitional phrasing does not exclude further pinholes and lenses. It is unclear if the claimed parallax image limits the invention to a display structures in conjunction with a supersystem (i.e. further lenses and pinholes as shown and disclosed in Fig. 19) together providing parallax or merely limits the display that is useable with a system exhibiting parallax. Under the latter interpretation, there is no structural distinction between the claimed display and a display providing any image and thus the language does not appear to further limit the claimed invention. Under the former interpretation, the display may be structured to utilized interleaving pixel patterns or a segmented display as shown in Fig. 19. For the purposes of examination, the language will not be interpreted as further limiting the scope of invention as any 2D display with the claimed aperture arrangement exhibits angular dependence and therefore parallax.
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 12-19 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub. 2021/0014473 to Hua et al. (hereinafter Hua) in view of US Pat. No. 9,706,192 to Watanabe et al. (hereinafter Watanabe).
Regarding claim 12, Hua discloses an image display apparatus (Figs. 1-2, 3A, 4D) with an extended depth of focus ([0010]-[0011]), the apparatus comprising: a display unit (micro-displays 131 comprising backlight 138, spatial light modulator 135, non-self-emissive microdisplay 137, Fig. 4D); an optical element unit (relay group 120 with tunable lens 122, microlens array 132, spatial light modulator 135, non-self-emissive microdisplay 137, Fig. 4D) disposed to be spaced apart from a front surface of the display unit (front surface of backlight 138, Fig. 4D) by a predetermined distance and including a lens (relay group 120 with tunable lens 122, microlens array 132, Fig. 4D) and a pinhole (“the aperture array 136 is replaced by a programmable spatial light modulator (SLM) 135 so that the size and shape of each aperture can be dynamically adapted to avoid partially blocking desired rays”; [0038]-[0040]) that has an opening portion (“the aperture array 136 is replaced by a programmable spatial light modulator (SLM) 135 so that the size and shape of each aperture can be dynamically adapted to avoid partially blocking desired rays”; [0038]-[0040]); a main optics lens (eyepiece 110, Fig. 3A & 4D; [0038]-[0040]) disposed to be spaced apart from a front surface of the optical element unit by a predetermined distance (Figs. 3A & 4D) wherein a convergence area (Figs. 1-2) of a virtual image is formed at a position spaced apart from the main optics lens by a predetermined distance (Figs. 1-2, 3A, 4D); a control unit configured to control an element for electrically fine-adjusting a size of the opening portion of the pinhole (“spatial light modulator 135 may be set to program and control the cone angle of the rays that illuminate the microdisplay 137 and reach the MLA 132”; [0038]-[0040]), wherein the control unit applies an electrical signal to the element to adjust the size of the opening portion (PDmi) of the pinhole ([0038]-[0040]) so as to control a size of the convergence area of the virtual image determined according to a predetermined depth of focus (DOF) range of the virtual image (implicitly and explicitly detailed in the operation of the entire optical system; [0037]-[0051]), wherein the display unit corresponding to the lens and the pinhole provides one parallax image ([0007],[0037]), and wherein the convergence area of the virtual image is positioned at a pupil of a user's eye so that the user can view the virtual image input to the display (Figs. 1, 2, 3A, 4D; [0038]-[0051]).
Hua discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose: a liquid crystal element for electrically fine-adjusting a size of the opening portion.
Watanabe discloses a liquid crystal element (e.g. image separator 101 with segment 300, Figs. 1-3) for electrically fine-adjusting a size of the opening portion (“aperture width-pitch determination sub-unit 200 for example determines barrier pitch and widths of a first aperture portion and a second aperture portion illustrated in FIG. 3”), wherein the control unit applies an electrical signal to the element to adjust the size of the opening portion (PDmi) of the pinhole so as to control a size of the convergence area of the virtual image (col. 5, ln. 23-col. 6, ln. 20) determined according to a predetermined depth of focus (DOF) range of the virtual image (“aperture width and barrier pitch for each region, based on viewing information 102 such as appropriate viewing distance”; col. 5, ln. 23-col. 6, ln. 20) and the display unit corresponding to the lens and the pinhole provides one parallax image (“the image display device relating to the first embodiment includes an image display 100, an image separator 101, the separator controller 103, a display circuit 107 and a plurality of parallax images 108”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a liquid crystal shutter as taught by Watanabe with the system as disclosed by Hua. The motivation would have been to controllably adjust viewing distance, among other display characteristics (col. 5, ln. 23-col. 6, ln. 20).
Regarding claim 13, Hua discloses the display unit has an array structure in which micro-displays are arranged adjacent to each other (Fig. 4D), and the optical element unit has an array structure in which micro-lenses and pinholes (Fig. 4D) of which openings are adjustable, that correspond to the micro-displays are arranged adjacent to each other (Fig. 4D), wherein in the array structure of the micro-displays, a display area of each array structure provides one parallax image corresponding to a parallax image at a convergence position (Figs. 1-2). Note: The functional language limiting the display in describing the manner of providing an image does not structurally distinguish the display over a display providing a different image.
Regarding claim 14, Hua discloses two or more convergence areas are formed at a position of the pupil of the eye using the micro-displays and the micro-lenses (arrayed optics; [0037]-[0040]), and the two or more convergence areas are adjacent parallax images (“InI-based display using 2D arrays allows the reconstruction of a 3D shape with full-parallax information in both horizontal and vertical directions”).
Regarding claim 15, Hua discloses the optical element unit or the main optics lens includes a plurality of lenses (Fig. 3A, 4D; [0038]-[0040]).
Regarding claim 16, Hua discloses a beam splitter disposed between the main optics lens and the pupil of the eye and configured to change a path of light, wherein the user simultaneously observes a virtual image reflected from the beam splitter and a real-world image that has passed through the beam splitter (Fig. 6A; [0038]-[0040],[0053]). The rejection does not rely upon a combination of embodiments, but rather the explicit substitution of the fixed aperture array 136 with the variable aperture elements described in Fig. 4D.
Regarding claim 17, Hua discloses the control unit further configured to control a fine adjustment device configured to adjust the separation distance between the display unit and the optical element unit to change a best position (Dbest) of the virtual image (tunable lens 122 embodied as a fluid lens or deformable mirror, [0041]).
Regarding claim 18, Hua discloses an eye-tracking system configured to provide focal distance information of the eye, wherein the control unit adjusts the separation distance (Dmd) between the display unit and the optical element unit according to the focal distance information of the eye (Fig. 18; [0072]).
Regarding claim 19, Hua discloses an eye-tracking system configured to provide focal distance information of the eye, wherein two virtual image positions are set and used, and the control unit selectively adjusts the separation distance (Dmd) between the display unit and the optical element unit so that, among the two virtual image positions, a position close to a focal distance measured by the eye-tracking system is selected (Fig. 18; [0037]-[0051],[0072]).
Regarding claim 27, Hua discloses a distance between the optical element unit and the main optics lens and a distance between the main optics lens and the convergence area at the position of the pupil of the eye (Figs. 1-2, 3A, 4D).
Hua discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose: a ratio of a distance between the optical element unit and the main optics lens and a distance between the main optics lens and the convergence area at the position of the pupil of the eye ranges from 1.5 to 4.
While Hua s silent as to the specific distances, Hua discloses that the these distances are critical to the image quality in the eye ([0037]-[0051]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the image quality would motivate the specific claimed ratio range involving these distances and that there would be no unexpected result from the particular claimed range. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20-24 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination with other references, neither teaches nor suggests an image display apparatus with an extended depth of focus comprising two display units, lenses, pinholes, and a control unit configured to control respective liquid crystal elements for electrically fine-adjusting sizes of the first and second opening portions of respective pinholes, wherein the control unit applies an electrical signal to the respective liquid crystal elements to respectively adjust the sizes of the first and second opening portions (PDml1, PDm12) of the respective pinholes so as to respectively control sizes of the first and second convergence areas of the first and second virtual images determined according to respective predetermined depth of focus ranges of the first and second virtual images, each DOF range including a most near accommodation position of an eye of a user and a most far accommodation position of the eye of the user, which are each defined in diopters, wherein the most near accommodation position and the most far accommodation position are closest and farthest distances, respectively, at which the user can focus without perceiving blurring of a virtual image; wherein the first display unit and the second display unit are configured to create two virtual images; and wherein the first and second convergence areas of the first and second virtual images are positioned at a position of a pupil of the eye of the user so that the user can view the first and second virtual images input to the first and second display units (Claim 20).
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/01/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 16 of the Response, Applicant argues “Hua’s aperture is for crosstalk/ray-direction control, not DOF control tied to a predetermined DOF range”. Applicant further points to claim language including “determined according to a pre-determined DOF range” and argues the point of Hua is not DOF control. Examiner acknowledges and agrees that the manner by which DOF is controlled differs in Hua compared to the disclosed approach taken by Applicant. The claim language, however extends to across a breadth of invention beyond that which Applicant discloses as the language is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specifications. The aperture and lens system in Hua necessarily determines the DOF and one does not perform the function absent the other. In this way, both elements determine the depth of focus and size of the convergence area as claimed. The claim does not require the controller to select a depth of focus and apply the electrical signal to the LC element to adjust the size of the opening according to the selected depth of focus. The claim language merely provides an aperture so as to control a convergence area size determined according to a depth of focus.
On page 17-18 of the Response, Applicant argues embodiments according to Claim 12 “functionally partition the system so that for each lens+pinhole pair in the optical element unit, the display provides a single parallax image”. This is addressed in the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection above. In summary, the basis of the argument is tenuous until there is clarity with the provided parallax image. Examiner acknowledges that the correspondence between an image portion, a lens, and a pinhole in the array of image portions, lenses, and pinholes is structurally distinct from Hua’s invention – though the claim is not limited to such an embodiment.
Applicant’s additional arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 CHRISTOPHER J STANFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3337. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-4PM PST M-F.
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, 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.
/CHRISTOPHER STANFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872