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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/07/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-6, 9-16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. No. 8,639,072 to Popovich et al. (hereinafter Popovich).
Regarding claim 1, Popovich discloses an optical assembly (Fig. 3), comprising: an optical stack (Fig. 3) comprising at least two optical elements (substrates 10 and 40, Figs. 1-3); and at least one spatially located optical component (SBG region, Fig. 3; col. 6, ln. 21-col. 7, ln. 14) between the at least two optical elements (Figs. 1-3), wherein the spatially located optical component is located at a transmissive location to transmit display light emitted from a display element (display rays 102, Fig. 3); and comprises a non-linear surface (“In any of the above embodiments the substrates sandwiching the HPDLC layer may be planar, curved or formed from a mosaic of planar or curved facets”; col. 21, ll. 1-3) configured to implement a non-linear phase change to compensate for a distortion of the display light (“SBG region corresponds to an off-axis holographic lens which when illuminated by the off axis input rays 102 forms a virtual image 400 behind the display, ie on the opposite side of the display from the viewer” & “SBG and DOE together encode the optical prescription of a diverging aspheric off-axis lens”).
Neither integration nor distinction of the features of Popovich Figs. 1-3 are explicitly stated. In other words, it is unclear if Fig. 1, 2, and 3 are necessarily distinct species or rather different aspects of a same embodiment. Whether the features of Figs. 1-3 are intended to be disclosed within a single embodiment or not, the invention is nonetheless obvious in view of a combination of features disclosed in Figs. 1-3 of Popovich.
Fig. 1 includes details of the optical stack of optical elements as they relate to electrodes and electric field generation shaping SBG regions. Fig. 2 includes details of the optical stack performing light guiding functions for inputting display light into the SBG region. Fig. 3 details the virtual image generation and optical functioning of the stack and SBG. These elements are not mutually exclusive, and a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand the elements to be combinable in a single embodiment for the purpose of providing an easy-to-wear display that is natural and non-distracting and avoiding image loss during head movement while also being a low power consumer (col. 1, ln. 21-col. 2, ln. 29).
Regarding claim 2, Popovich discloses the optical stack further comprises pancake optics (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Popovich discloses a surface of the spatially located optical component is partitioned into a plurality of regions ( “SBG region corresponds to an off-axis holographic lens which when illuminated by the off axis input rays 102 forms a virtual image 400 behind the display, ie on the opposite side of the display from the viewer” & “SBG and DOE together encode the optical prescription of a diverging aspheric off-axis lens”; Fig. 3).
Regarding claims 4 and 12, Popovich discloses each of the plurality of regions implements a unique diffraction design ( “SBG region corresponds to an off-axis holographic lens which when illuminated by the off axis input rays 102 forms a virtual image 400 behind the display, ie on the opposite side of the display from the viewer” & “SBG and DOE together encode the optical prescription of a diverging aspheric off-axis lens”; Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5, Popovich discloses each of plurality of regions reflects an associated cluster of optical rays (Fig. 2-3, SBGs necessarily transmit and reflect rays 102).
Regarding claims 6 and 13, Popovich discloses each of the plurality of regions reflects the associated cluster of optical rays at a unique reflective angle (“SBG region corresponds to an off-axis holographic lens which when illuminated by the off axis input rays 102 forms a virtual image 400 behind the display, ie on the opposite side of the display from the viewer” & “SBG and DOE together encode the optical prescription of a diverging aspheric off-axis lens”; Fig. 3).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Popovich discloses the spatially located optical component is located at a reflecting location for use as a reflective element (Fig. 2-3, SBGs necessarily transmit and reflect rays 102).
Regarding claims 10, 14 and 20, Popovich discloses the optical assembly is part of a head- mounted display (HMD) used in at least one of a virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), or mixed reality (MR) environment (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 11, Popovich discloses a head-mounted display (HMD) (Abstract & Fig. 3), comprising: a display element to provide light (Figs. 1-3) and the optical assembly of Claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 15, Popovich discloses the spatially located optical component includes at least one curved surface having a curvature (“In any of the above embodiments the substrates sandwiching the HPDLC layer may be planar, curved or formed from a mosaic of planar or curved facets”; col. 21, ll. 1-3).
Regarding claim 16, Popovich discloses the curvature of the at least one curved surface is associated with a particular phase profile (a curved trans-reflective SBG of Fig. 3 necessarily associates curves to phase profiles; col. 6, ln. 21-col. 7, ln. 14 & col. 21, ll. 1-3).
Regarding claims 19, Popovich discloses a method for providing distortion compensation and enhanced image clarity in an optical assembly (“SBG region corresponds to an off-axis holographic lens which when illuminated by the off axis input rays 102 forms a virtual image 400 behind the display, ie on the opposite side of the display from the viewer” & “SBG and DOE together encode the optical prescription of a diverging aspheric off-axis lens”, Fig. 1-3), comprising: partitioning a surface of at least one spatially located optical component into a plurality of regions each having a unique diffraction design (“SBG region corresponds to an off-axis holographic lens which when illuminated by the off axis input rays 102 forms a virtual image 400 behind the display, ie on the opposite side of the display from the viewer” & “SBG and DOE together encode the optical prescription of a diverging aspheric off-axis lens”, Fig. 1-3); providing a curvature with respect to the at least one spatially located optical component (“In any of the above embodiments the substrates sandwiching the HPDLC layer may be planar, curved or formed from a mosaic of planar or curved facets”; col. 21, ll. 1-3), wherein the curvature is associated with a particular phase profile (a curved trans-reflective SBG of Fig. 3 necessarily associates curves to phase profiles; col. 6, ln. 21-col. 7, ln. 14 & col. 21, ll. 1-3); and spatially locating the at least one spatially located optical component (SBG region, Fig. 3; col. 6, ln. 21-col. 7, ln. 14) between two optical components of an optical assembly (substrates 10 and 40, Figs. 1-3); wherein the at least one spatially located optical component: and is in a location to transmit optical rays emitted from a display element of the optical assembly (Fig. 1-3); and comprises a non-linear surface surface (“In any of the above embodiments the substrates sandwiching the HPDLC layer may be planar, curved or formed from a mosaic of planar or curved facets”; col. 21, ll. 1-3) configured to implement a non-linear phase change to compensate for a distortion of a display light (“SBG region corresponds to an off-axis holographic lens which when illuminated by the off axis input rays 102 forms a virtual image 400 behind the display, ie on the opposite side of the display from the viewer” & “SBG and DOE together encode the optical prescription of a diverging aspheric off-axis lens”).
Neither integration nor distinction of the features of Popovich Figs. 1-3 are explicitly stated. In other words, it is unclear if Fig. 1, 2, and 3 are necessarily distinct species or rather different aspects of a same embodiment. Whether the features of Figs. 1-3 are intended to be disclosed within a single embodiment or not, the invention is nonetheless obvious in view of a combination of features disclosed in Figs. 1-3 of Popovich.
Fig. 1 includes details of the optical stack of optical elements as they relate to electrodes and electric field generation shaping SBG regions. Fig. 2 includes details of the optical stack performing light guiding functions for inputting display light into the SBG region. Fig. 3 details the virtual image generation and optical functioning of the stack and SBG. These elements are not mutually exclusive, and a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand the elements to be combinable in a single embodiment for the purpose of providing an easy-to-wear display that is natural and non-distracting and avoiding image loss during head movement while also being a low power consumer (col. 1, ln. 21-col. 2, ln. 29).
Claims 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Popovich, as applied to Claim 3, and further in view of US Pat. No. 5,917,459 to Son (hereinafter Son).
Regarding claim 7, Popovich discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose a first region of the plurality of regions reflects a cluster of red optical rays, a second region of the plurality of regions reflects a cluster of yellow optical rays, a third region of the plurality of regions reflects a cluster of green optical rays, and a fourth region of the plurality of regions reflects a cluster of blue optical rays.
Son discloses: a first region of the plurality of regions reflects a cluster of red optical rays, a third region of the plurality of regions reflects a cluster of green optical rays, and a fourth region of the plurality of regions reflects a cluster of blue optical rays (Figs. 3-4; col. 4, ln. 62-col. 5, ln. 5). While Son does not specifically disclose a region of the plurality of regions reflects a cluster of yellow optical rays, a person having ordinary skill in the art would find the modification obvious to try among finite spectral bands within the visible light spectrum. As shown in Son, transreflective regions of the optical element are provided in order to match the incoming a wavelength.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provides regions for reflecting specific wavelengths as taught by Son with the system as disclosed by Popovich. The motivation would have been to increase spectral selectivity (col. 4, ln. 62-col. 5, ln. 15).
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Popovich, as applied to Claims 1 and 11, and further in view of US PG Pub. 2014/0361957 to Hua et al. (hereinafter Hua).
Regarding claims 21 and 22, Popovich discloses the non-linear surface has a shape selected from the group consisting of spherical, cylindrical, and aspheric.
Hua discloses the non-linear surface has a shape selected from the group consisting of spherical, cylindrical, and aspheric (“Surface 3 may be an aspheric surface with a rotationally symmetric kinoform diffractive optical element”; [0051]+).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to an aspheric surface shape as taught by Hua with the system as disclosed by Popovich. The motivation would have been to achieve an innovative optical scheme without reliance on spherically-symmetric optics ([0013]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s 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