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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/01/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 2-18, and 21-23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 2, 5-6 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jamali (US 2021/0231952, of record) in view of Bevensee (US 2022/0179193).
Regarding claim 2, Jamali discloses a display system (see Fig 5), comprising: a display configured to emit light corresponding to an image (see Fig 5; Para [0070]; a light emission array 510 is configured to emit light); and a first optical control component to receive the light emitted by the display and modify a direction the light travels as it passes through the first optical control component (see Fig 5; Para [0073]; a freeform varifocal optical system configured to modify light), wherein: the first optical control component comprises a polarization- dependent metasurface (see Fig 5; Para [0073]; a polarization sensitive lensing element may include a meta surface); the first optical control component is to dynamically switch between a first state where the first optical control component diffracts the light at a first angle, and a second state where the first optical control component maintains the direction the light travels (see Fig 6; Para [0080-0083]; optical stages 602 include a first on state and a second off state);.
Jamali does not disclose the first optical control component diffracts the light at a first uniform first angle, and a second state when the first optical control component maintains the direction the light travels; and the polarization-dependent metasurface of the first optical control component comprises a first metagrating to diffract the light at the uniform first angle as it passes through the first metagrating when the first optical control component is in the first state. Jamali and Bevensee are related because both disclose display systems.
Bevensee discloses a display system with a meta surface (see Fig 2E) the first optical control component diffracts the light at a first uniform first angle (see Fig 5A; Para [0082]; an energy directing device 502 diffracts light at an angle depending on electrical state), and a second state when the first optical control component maintains the direction the light travels (see Fig 5A; Para [0082]; an energy directing device 502 may be in a state to maintain direction of light); and the polarization-dependent metasurface of the first optical control component comprises a first metagrating to diffract the light at the uniform first angle as it passes through the first metagrating when the first optical control component is in the first state (see Fig 5A; Para [0082]; examiner interprets an energy directing device 502 to be first metagrating direction light in an electrified state).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Jamali the first optical control component diffracts the light at a first uniform first angle, and a second state when the first optical control component maintains the direction the light travels; and the polarization-dependent metasurface of the first optical control component comprises a first metagrating to diffract the light at the uniform first angle as it passes through the first metagrating when the first optical control component is in the first state of Bevensee for the purpose of improving visual effects by improving the speed of dynamic visual adjusts (Para [0042])
Regarding claim 5, Jamali in view of Bevensee discloses the display system of claim 6 (see Fig 5). Jamali does not disclose wherein a first optical control component is to modify the angular distribution of the light, the meta surface of the first optical control component comprising a meta-lens array to converge or diverge the light at a given polarization as it passes through the meta-lens array. Jamali and Bevensee are related because both disclose display systems with meta surfaces.
Bevensee discloses a display system with a meta surface (see Fig 2E) wherein a first optical control component is to modify the angular distribution of the light, the meta surface of the first optical control component comprising a meta-lens array to converge or diverge the light at a given polarization as it passes through the meta-lens array (see Fig 4B; Para [0079]; light angular distribution may be adjusted to converge/diverge light).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Jamali wherein a first optical control component is to modify the angular distribution of the light, the meta surface of the first optical control component comprising a meta-lens array to converge or diverge the light at a given polarization as it passes through the meta-lens array of Bevensee for the purpose of improving visual effects by improving the speed of dynamic visual adjusts (Para [0042])
Regarding claim 6, Jamali discloses a display system (see Fig 5), comprising: a display to emit light corresponding to an image (see Fig 5; Para [0070]; a light emission array 510 is configured to emit light); and a first optical control component to receive the light emitted by the display and modify an image as it passes through the first optical control component (see Fig 5; Para [0073]; a freeform varifocal optical system configured to modify light), wherein: the first optical control component comprises a polarization- dependent metasurface (see Fig 5; Para [0073]; a polarization sensitive lensing element may include a meta surface); the first optical control component is to dynamically switch between a first state where the first optical control component modifies the image, and a second state where the first optical control component maintains the image (see Fig 6; Para [0080-0083]; optical stages 602 include a first on state and a second off state).
Jamali does not disclose modify a perceived depth of the image as it passes through the first optical control component; a first state modifies the perceived depth of the image; a second state where the first optical control component maintains perceived depth of the image; the polarization dependent metasurface of the first optical control component comprises a meta-lens array to reimage one or more pixels associated with the image when the first optical control component is in the first state. Jamali and Bevensee are related because both disclose display systems with meta surfaces.
Bevensee discloses a display system with a meta surface (see Fig 2E) modify a perceived depth of the image as it passes through the first optical control component; a first state modifies the perceived depth of the image (see Fig 4B; Para [0079]; light angular distribution may be adjusted to converge/diverge light in an electrified state); a second state where the first optical control component maintains perceived depth of the image (see Fig 4B; Para [0079]; light angular distribution may be left untouched in a second electrified state); the polarization dependent metasurface of the first optical control component comprises a meta-lens array to reimage one or more pixels associated with the image when the first optical control component is in the first state (see Fig 4B; Para [0078-0079]; the metasurface may adjust angular distribution to converge/diverge depending on electrical state; lighting source 401 may be a pixel RGB LED).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Jamali wherein a first optical control component is to modify the angular distribution of the light, the meta surface of the first optical control component comprising a meta-lens array to converge or diverge the light at a given polarization as it passes through the meta-lens array of Bevensee for the purpose of improving visual effects by improving the speed of dynamic visual adjusts (Para [0042])
Regarding claim 23, Jamali in view of Bevensee discloses the display system of claim 2. Jamali further discloses wherein the one or more optical control components do not affect aberrations (see Fig 5; Para [0083]; optical elements may provide achromatic responses thus not affecting chromatic aberration).
Claims 3-4, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jamali (US 2021/0231952, of record) in view of Bevensee (US 2022/0179193) as applied to claim 2, above and further in view of Tabirian (US 2011/0188120, of record).
Regarding claim 3, Jamali in view of Bevensee discloses the display system of claim 2 (see Fig 5). Jamali further discloses wherein the first optical control component is one of a plurality of optical control components to modify the direction the light travels (see Fig 5; Para [0073]; optical modules may be used to control tilt), the plurality of optical control components each having a respective polarization-dependent metasurface, and further including a second optical control component cascaded with the first optical control component (see Fig 6; Para [0080]; a plurality of optical control components 602A-N may be used to modulate light; Bevensee discloses using metasurfaces in different states to steer light), the metasurface of the second optical control component comprising a second metagrating to diffract the light at the uniform first angle as it passes through the second metagrating, wherein when the first and second optical control components are in the first state (see Fig 7; Para [0083-0092]; in an off state polarization light of specific polarization is deflected and focused at a specified power; Bevensee discloses using metasurfaces in different states to steer light).
Jamali in view of Bevensee does not disclose wherein the light is diffracted at two times the uniform first angle after it passes through the first and second optical control components. Jamali in view of Bevensee and Tabirian are related because both disclose display systems with gratings devices.
Tabirian discloses a display system with grating devices (see Fig 3B) wherein the light is diffracted at two times the first angle after it passes through the first and second optical control components (see Fig 3B; Para [0038-0040]; diffraction angle can be doubled by use of two adjustable diffractive waveplates)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Jamali in view of Bevensee with wherein the light is diffracted at two times the first angle after it passes through the first and second optical control components of Tabirian for the purpose of improving cost and weight for light positioning (Para [0010]).
Regarding claim 4, Jamali in view of Bevensee discloses the display system of claim 2 (see Fig 5). Jamali further discloses further comprising a second optical control component, second optical control component also having polarization dependent metasurface, wherein: first optical control component is adjacent to the second optical control component (see Fig 6; Para [0059, 0080]; a plurality of optical control components 602A-N may be used to modulate light each having metasurfaces/metamaterials); the metasurface of the second optical control component comprises a second metagrating to diffract the light at a second angle (see Fig 7; Para [0083-0092]; in an off state polarization light of specific polarization is deflected and focused at a specified power; Bevensee discloses steering light at a uniform angle and in different states).
Jamali in view of Bevensee does not disclose wherein a second metagrating to diffract the light at a uniform second angle opposite the first angle as it passes through the second metagrating. Jamali in view of Bevensee and Tabirian are related because both disclose display systems with gratings devices.
Tabirian discloses a display system with grating devices (see Fig 3A) wherein a second metagrating to diffract the light at a second uniform angle opposite the first angle as it passes through the second metagrating (see Fig 3A; Para [0033]; light can be diffracted at a primary angle then at an opposite angle to form a transverse shift as seen in fig 3A)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Jamali in view of Bevensee with wherein a second metagrating to diffract the light at a second uniform angle opposite the first angle as it passes through the second metagrating of Tabirian for the purpose of improving cost and weight for light positioning systems (Para [0010]).
Regarding claim 7, Jamali in view of Bevensee discloses the display system of claim 2. Jamali in view of Bevensee does not disclose wherein: the first optical control component further includes a substrate having a first side and a second side opposite the first side, wherein the first metagrating is on the first side of the substrate, and a switchable half-wave plate and a second metagrating are on the second side of the substrate; the first metagrating is to diffract a first polarization of the light at the uniform first angle as it passes through the first metagrating, and not diffract a second polarization of the light as it passes through the first metagrating; and the second metagrating is to diffract the first polarization of the light at a second uniform angle, opposite the first angle, as it passes through the second metagrating, and not diffract the second polarization of the light as it passes through the second metagrating. Jamali in view of Bevensee and Tabirian are related because both disclose display systems with gratings devices.
Tabirian discloses a display system with grating devices (see Fig 3A) wherein: the first optical control component further includes a substrate having a first side and a second side opposite the first side, wherein the first metagrating is on the first side of the substrate, and a switchable half-wave plate and a second metagrating are on the second side of the substrate (see Fig 1A; Para [0031]; a substrate is disposed between two optical diffractive waveguides; Jamali disclose polarization sensitive optical elements); the first metagrating is to diffract a first polarization of the light at the uniform first angle as it passes through the first metagrating, and not diffract a second polarization of the light as it passes through the first metagrating (see Fig 8B; Para [0038] a first set of DW 807 and 809 diffracts light of a selected type of light and transmits light of another type of light; Jamali discloses polarization sensitive optical elements); and the second metagrating is to diffract the first polarization of the light at a second uniform angle, opposite the first angle, as it passes through the second metagrating, and not diffract the second polarization of the light as it passes through the second metagrating (see Fig 8B; Para [0033, 0038]; a first light diffracted from a set of DW may be diffracted at a second angle opposite first as seen in Fig 3A and can allow second light to pass through a second set of DW; Jamali discloses polarization sensitive optical elements) .
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Jamali in view of Bevensee with wherein: the first optical control component further includes a substrate having a first side and a second side opposite the first side, wherein the first metagrating is on the first side of the substrate, and a switchable half-wave plate and a second metagrating are on the second side of the substrate; the first metagrating is to diffract a first polarization of the light at the uniform first angle as it passes through the first metagrating, and not diffract a second polarization of the light as it passes through the first metagrating; and the second metagrating is to diffract the first polarization of the light at a second uniform angle, opposite the first angle, as it passes through the second metagrating, and not diffract the second polarization of the light as it passes through the second metagrating of Tabirian for the purpose of improving cost and weight for light positioning systems (Para [0010]).
Claims 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jamali (US 2021/0231952, of record) in view of Bevensee (US 2022/0179193) as applied to claim 2, above and further in view of Jamali A. (US 2021/0092351, of record).
Regarding claim 8, Jamali in view of Bevensee discloses the display system of claim 2 (see Fig 5). Jamali in view of Bevensee does not disclose wherein the polarization dependent meta surface is capable of switching between the first state and the second state at a frequency greater than a framerate of the display. Jamali in view of Bevensee and Jamali A are related because both disclose display systems with meta surfaces.
Jamali A. discloses a display system with meta surfaces (see Fig 2B; Para [0070]) wherein the polarization dependent meta surface is capable of switching between the first state and the second state at a frequency greater than a framerate of the display (see Fig 2B; Para [0069]; an LC cell is capable of switching at speeds of up to 1microsecond for a display of 100HZ which is greater than the 100Hz framerate).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Jamali in view of Bevensee with wherein the polarization dependent meta surface is capable of switching between the first state and the second state at a frequency greater than a framerate of the display of Jamali A. for the purpose of improved visual performance for volumetric displays (Para [0005-0006])
Regarding claim 11, Jamali in view of Bevensee and Jamali A discloses the display system of claim 8 (Jamali A.: see Fig 2B). Jamali does not disclose wherein: the first optical control component is capable of switching between the first state and the second state at a frequency at least two times greater than a framerate of the display, and the first optical control component is configured to create an image having a framerate at least two times greater than the display.
Jamali A. discloses wherein: the first optical control component is capable of switching between the first state and the second state at a frequency at least two times greater than a framerate of the display, and the first optical control component is configured to create an image having a framerate at least two times greater than the display (Jamali A.: see Fig 2B; Para [0069]; an LC cell is capable of switching at speeds of up to 1 microsecond for a display of 100HZ which is at least 2x greater than the 100Hz framerate).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Jamali with wherein: the first optical control component is capable of switching between the first state and the second state at a frequency at least two times greater than a framerate of the display, and the first optical control component is configured to create an image having a framerate at least two times greater than the display of Jamali A. for the purpose of improved visual performance for volumetric displays (Para [0005-0006])
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jamali (US 2021/0231952, of record) in view of Bevensee (US 2022/0179193) and Tabirian (US 2011/0188120, of record) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Mashitani (US 2017/0099484, of record)
Regarding claim 9, Jamali in view of Bevensee and Tabirian discloses the display system of claim 7 (Tabirian: see Fig 3A). Tabirian discloses further comprising a second optical control component, wherein: the first optical control component when operating in the first state diffracts light from the display at the uniform first angle towards the second optical control component which diffracts the received light at a uniform second angle, equal to and opposite the first angle, resulting in a lateral shift of the light, the first and second optical control components (see Fig 3A; Para [0033]; a second optical component 304 may work with a first 302 to laterally shift an image).
Tabirian does not disclose resulting in a lateral shift of the light, the first and second optical control components spaced such that the lateral shift of the image is less than a length of a pixel of the image; and the first and second optical control components when operating in the second state do not result in the same lateral shift of the light; and the display system switches between the first and second states to create a higher resolution image at a lower frame rate. Jamali in view of Bevensee and Tabirian and Mashitani are related because both disclose optical display systems.
Mashitani discloses an optical display system (see Fig 4) resulting in a lateral shift of the light, the first and second optical control components spaced such that the lateral shift of the image is less than a length of a pixel of the image (see Fig 7; Para [0039, 0062]; image is shifted by a pixel length or less to achieve higher resolution); and the first and second optical control components when operating in the second state do not result in the same lateral shift of the light (Tabirian discloses in Fig 8 different shift for different type of light; Bevensee discloses different light tilt for different electrical states); and the display system switches between the first and second states to create a higher resolution image at a lower frame rate (see Fig 7; Para [0039, 0062]; image is shifted by a pixel length or less to achieve higher resolution)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Jamali in view of Bevensee and Tabirian with resulting in a lateral shift of the light, the first and second optical control components spaced such that the lateral shift of the image is less than a length of a pixel of the image; and the first and second optical control components when operating in the second state do not result in the same lateral shift of the light; and the display system switches between the first and second states to create a higher resolution image at a lower frame rate of Mashitani for the purpose of improving resolution while reducing cost (Para [0039]).
Regarding claim 10, Jamali in view of Bevensee, Tabirian and Mashitani discloses the display system of claim 9 (see Fig 5). Bevensee discloses wherein: the display comprises a plurality of display pixels; and the first optical control components is part of a plurality of first optical control components, each of the plurality of first optical control components positioned over a respective one of the display pixels to shift the position of light emitted by the pixel when the said first optical control component is in the first state (see Fig 9; Para [0096]; display 900 may contain a plurality of pixels 858 with a plurality of energy directing sites 882 to control light shift).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Jamali in view of Bevensee, Tabirian and Mashitani with wherein: the display comprises a plurality of display pixels; and the first optical control components is part of a plurality of first optical control components, each of the plurality of first optical control components positioned over a respective one of the display pixels to shift the position of light emitted by the pixel when the said first optical control component is in the first state of Bevensee for the purpose of improving visual effects by improving the speed of dynamic visual adjusts (Para [0042])
Claim 17 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jamali (US 2021/0231952, of record) in view of Bevensee (US 2022/0179193) as applied to claims 2 and 6 above, and further in view of Jones (US 2016/0314564).
Regarding claim 17, Jamali in view of Bevensee discloses the display system of claim 2 (see Fig 5). Jamali in view of Bevensee does not disclose wherein: the display system is a tessellated display to expand a viewed size of the image; the display system further comprises at least two mirrors placed normal to and adjacent to a surface of the display; and the first optical component is configured to cause the light to travel in the direction of one of the two mirrors, wherein the light incident on one of the two mirrors is reflected by said mirror exactly once. Jamali in view of Bevensee and Jones are related because both disclose optical displays.
Jones discloses an optical display (see Fig 7) wherein: the display system is a tessellated display to expand a viewed size of the image (see Fig 7; Para [0091, 0146-0148]; a display may be a tessellated display and may expand an image as seen in Fig 7); the display system further comprises at least two mirrors placed normal to and adjacent to a surface of the display (see Fig 7; Para [0091]; facets 720B and 720C act as mirrors placed substantially normal and adjacent to display 710); and the first optical component is configured to cause the light to travel in the direction of one of the two mirrors, wherein the light incident on one of the two mirrors is reflected by said mirror exactly once (see Fig 7; Para [0091]; display 710 together with facet 720A is configured to cause light to travel in a direction of mirror/facets 720b and 720c which only reflect light once).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Jamali in view of Bevensee with wherein: the display system is a tessellated display to expand a viewed size of the image; the display system further comprises at least two mirrors placed normal to and adjacent to a surface of the display; and the first optical component is configured to cause the light to travel in the direction of one of the two mirrors, wherein the light incident on one of the two mirrors is reflected by said mirror exactly once of Jones for the purpose of providing need light displacement is an efficient and effective manner without increasing size or complexity (Para [0091]).
Regarding claim 21, Jamali in view of Bevensee discloses the display system of claim 6. Jamali in view of Bevensee does not disclose further comprising at least two mirrors placed normal to and adjacent to a surface of the display, wherein the first optical component is to cause the light to travel in the direction of one of the two mirrors; the polarization-dependent metasurface of the first optical control component comprises a first metagrating to diffract the light at a uniform first angle as it passes through the metagrating; and the at least two mirrors tessellate the image to expand a viewed size of the image, wherein the light incident on one of the two mirrors is reflected by said mirror exactly once. Jamali in view of Bevensee and Jones are related because both disclose optical displays.
Jones discloses an optical display (see Fig 7) further comprising at least two mirrors placed normal to and adjacent to a surface of the display (see Fig 7; Para [0091]; facets 720B and 720C act as mirrors placed substantially normal and adjacent to display 710), wherein the first optical component is to cause the light to travel in the direction of one of the two mirrors (see Fig 7; Para [0091]; display 710 together with facet 720A is configured to cause light to travel in a direction of mirror/facets 720b and 720c which only reflect light once); the polarization-dependent metasurface of the first optical control component comprises a first metagrating to diffract the light at a uniform first angle as it passes through the metagrating (Jamali discloses a polarization dependent metasurface in Fig 5; Para [0073] and Bevensee discloses diffracting light at a uniform angle passing through metasurface 504 as seen in Fig 5A); and the at least two mirrors tessellate the image to expand a viewed size of the image, wherein the light incident on one of the two mirrors is reflected by said mirror exactly once (see Fig 7; Para [0091]; display 710 together with facet 720A is configured to cause light to travel in a direction of mirror/facets 720b and 720c which only reflect light onc)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Jamali in view of Bevensee with further comprising at least two mirrors placed normal to and adjacent to a surface of the display, wherein the first optical component is to cause the light to travel in the direction of one of the two mirrors; the polarization-dependent metasurface of the first optical control component comprises a first metagrating to diffract the light at a uniform first angle as it passes through the metagrating; and the at least two mirrors tessellate the image to expand a viewed size of the image, wherein the light incident on one of the two mirrors is reflected by said mirror exactly once of Jones for the purpose of providing need light displacement is an efficient and effective manner without increasing size or complexity (Para [0091]).
Claims 12-16, 18, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jamali (US 2021/0231952, of record) in view of Bevensee (US 2022/0179193) and Pahlevaninezhad (US 2022/0243876, of record).
Regarding claim 12, Jamali in view of Bevensee and Pahlevaninezhad discloses the display system of claim 18 (see Fig 5). Jamali further discloses wherein the polarization dependent meta surface of each of the plurality of optical components is between a first tunable waveplate and a second tunable waveplate (see Fig 14; Para [0128]; a second optical element 1412A is disposed between tunable first optical elements 1410A and 1410B).
Regarding claim 13, Jamali in view of Bevensee and Pahlevaninezhad discloses the display system of claim 12 (see Fig 5). Jamali further discloses further comprising: a controller to apply, for each of the plurality of optical control components, a control signal to the first tunable waveplate that switches a respective optical control component between the first state and the second state (see Fig 14; Para [0128-0129]; a controller 1414A controls the first tunable waveplate), wherein in the first state the first tunable waveplate affects a polarization of light passing through it, and wherein in the second state the first tunable waveplate does not affect the polarization of light passing through it (see Fig 14; Para [0128-0129]; in an off state a polarization is affected and in an on state light polarization is unaffected).
Regarding claim 14, Jamali in view of Bevensee and Pahlevaninezhad discloses the display system of claim 12 (see Fig 5). Jamali further discloses wherein the first tunable waveplate is a first switchable halfwave plate (HWP), and the second tunable waveplate is a second switchable HWP (see Fig 14; Para [0083]; first optical elements 1410A/B may be tunable halfwave plates).
Regarding claim 15, Jamali in view of Bevensee and Pahlevaninezhad discloses the display system of claim 14 (see Fig 5). Jamali discloses wherein each of the first switchable HWP and the second switchable HWP comprises a liquid crystal (see Fig 5; Para [0084]; first optical elements may include liquid crystal cells).
Regarding claim 16, Jamali in view of Bevensee and Pahlevaninezhad discloses the display system of claim 18. Jamali further discloses wherein each of the plurality of optical control components comprises the polarization-dependent metasurface between a first tunable wave plate and a cascaded set of tunable waveplates (see Fig 14; Para [0126-0131]; a second optical element 1412A is disposed between a first tunable waveplate 1410A and a cascade of tunable waveplates 1410B-F controlling optical functionalities).
Regarding claim 18, Jamali discloses a display system (see Fig 5), comprising: a display configured to emit light corresponding to an image (see Fig 5; Para [0070]; a light emission array 510 is configured to emit light); and a plurality of optical control components configured to receive the light emitted by the display and modify one or more properties associated with the light as it passes through the plurality of optical control components (see Fig 5; Para [0073]; a freeform varifocal optical system configured to modify light with optical stages 602A-602N), wherein: each of the plurality of optical control components comprises a polarization- dependent metasurface (see Fig 5; Para [0073]; a polarization sensitive lensing element may include a meta surface); each of the plurality of optical control components is to dynamically switch between a first state where the optical control component modifies at least one property of the one or more properties associated with the light, and a second state where the optical control component maintains the at least one property (see Fig 6; Para [0080-0083]; optical stages 602 include a first on state and a second off state in which a property is changed in one state and maintained in the other); wherein: the plurality of optical control components comprise a first optical control component and a second optical control component; the first optical control component is to modify the direction the light travels to control a destination that the light travels to (see Fig 6; Para [0073, 0080]; optical module may include multiple optical stages that can control tilt of image light); the polarization dependent metasurface of the second optical control component is to modify the angular distribution of the light to control a size of a viewable zone of the image (see Fig 6; Para [0073, 0080, 0109]; optical modules may include multiple optical stages that control distribution of light as seen in Fig 10 at 1025).
Jamali does not disclose the first optical control component is to modify the direction the light travels to control a destination that the light travels to; the second optical control component is to modify the angular distribution of the light to extend a size of a viewable zone of the image to accommodate two person simultaneously viewing the display system, the viewable zone being a volume where all pixels of the display are visible such that a person having two eyes in the viewing zone will see all the pixels of the display with both eyes; and the image after passing through the plurality of optical control components is free of independent stereoscopic depth cue(s). Jamali and Bevensee are related because both disclose display systems.
Bevensee discloses a display system with a meta surface (see Fig 2E) the first optical control component is to modify the direction the light travels to control a destination that the light travels to (see Fig 5B; Para [0083]; energy directing module 510 may be configured to steer light); the second optical control component is to modify the angular distribution of the light (see Fig 4B; Para [0079]; light angular distribution may be adjusted to converge/diverge light in an electrified state as seen in said figure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Jamali the first optical control component is to modify the direction the light travels to control a destination that the light travels to; the second optical control component is to modify the angular distribution of the light of Bevensee for the purpose of improving visual effects by improving the speed of dynamic visual adjusts (Para [0042]).
Jamali in view of Bevensee does not disclose extending a size of a viewable zone of the image to accommodate two persons simultaneously viewing the display system, the viewable zone being a volume where all pixels of the display are visible such that a person having two eyes in the viewing zone will see all the pixels of the display with both eyes; and the image after passing through the plurality of optical control components is free of independent stereoscopic depth cue(s). Jamali in view of Bevensee and Pahlevaninezhad are related because both disclose display systems with meta surfaces
Pahlevaninezhad discloses a display system with a meta surface (see Fig 7) extending a size of a viewable zone of the image to accommodate two persons simultaneously viewing the display system (see Fig 41; Para [0208-0211]; a size of a viewable zone may be expanded accommodating multiple users), the viewable zone being a volume where all pixels of the display are visible such that a person having two eyes in the viewing zone will see all the pixels of the display with both eyes (see Fig 41; Para [0208-0211]; examiner is interpreting this to be equivalent to the expanding of the FOV as seen in Fig 41); and the image after passing through the plurality of optical control components is free of independent stereoscopic depth cue(s) (see Fig 41; Para [0208-0211]; examiner is interpreting this to that light is not altered after passing the plurality of optical control components which in this case are 884 and 886).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Jamali in view of Bevensee with extending a size of a viewable zone of the image to accommodate two persons simultaneously viewing the display system, the viewable zone being a volume where all pixels of the display are visible such that a person having two eyes in the viewing zone will see all the pixels of the display with both eyes; and the image after passing through the plurality of optical control components is free of independent stereoscopic depth cue(s) of Pahlevaninezhad for the purpose of enhancing illumination intensity through the use of light directionally (Para [0005])
Regarding claim 22, Jamali in view of Bevensee disclose the display system of claim 6. Jamali further discloses wherein the first optical control component is one of a plurality of optical control components, each having a respective polarization dependent metasurface (see Fig 6; Para [0080]; a plurality of optical control components 602A-N may be used to modulate light; each having polarization dependent metasurfaces) the first optical control component is to modify the direction the light travels to control a destination that the light travels to (see Fig 6; Para [0073, 0080]; optical module may include multiple optical stages that control tilt of image light or a direction of the image; Bevensee discloses steering light); wherein the polarization-dependent metasurface of the second optical control component is to modify the angular distribution of the light (see Fig 6; Para [0073, 0080]; optical module may include multiple optical stages; Bevensee discloses changing angular distribution as seen in Fig 4B).
Jamali in view of Bevensee does not disclose wherein the polarization-dependent metasurface of the second optical control component is to modify the angular distribution of the light to extend a size of a viewable zone of the image to accommodate two persons simultaneously viewing the display system, the viewable zone being a volume where all pixels of the display are visible such that a person having two eyes in the viewing zone will see all the pixels of the display with both eyes. Jamali in view of Bevensee and Pahlevaninezhad are related because both disclose display systems with meta surfaces.
Pahlevaninezhad discloses a display system with a meta surface (see Fig 7) wherein the polarization-dependent metasurface of the second optical control component is to modify the angular distribution of the light to extend a size of a viewable zone of the image to accommodate two persons simultaneously viewing the display system (see Fig 41; Para [0208-0211]; a size of a viewable zone may be expanded accommodating multiple users; Jamali in view of Bevensee discloses modifying angular distribution), the viewable zone being a volume where all pixels of the display are visible such that a person having two eyes in the viewing zone will see all the pixels of the display with both eyes (see Fig 41; Para [0208-0211]; examiner is interpreting this to be equivalent to the expanding of the FOV as seen in Fig 41 so all adjacent eyes can view images of display)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Jamali with wherein the polarization-dependent metasurface of the second optical control component is to modify the angular distribution of the light to extend a size of a viewable zone of the image to accommodate two persons simultaneously viewing the display system, the viewable zone being a volume where all pixels of the display are visible such that a person having two eye in the viewing zone will see all the pixels of the display with both eyes of Pahlevaninezhad for the purpose of enhancing illumination intensity through the use of light directionally (Para [0005])
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL ANDRES SANZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3844. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am -5:30 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 on (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.
/G.A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/WILLIAM R ALEXANDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872