DETAILED ACTION
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/22/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments on 01/22/26 have been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on pages 6-9, filed on 01/22/26 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts on pages 6-7 that the cited reference Wheelwright does not disclose “wherein the optical means has a first surface and a second surface that are disposed opposite to each other, wherein the first surface is a surface which the real object image light enters and the second surface is a surface through which the augmented reality image light reflected by total internal reflection on the total internal reflection space and the real object image light passed through the first surface of the optical means are output toward the pupil of the eye of the user; wherein the total internal reflection space is formed inside the optical means and spaced apart from the first surface and the second surface.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. An updated rejection addressing the amended language is set forth below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. Claims recite “optical means” a review of the current published specification explains the terms on page 1, lines 23-24.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yaroshchuk et al. (US 20210191122) in view of Kim et al. (KR 20150026486) and Wheelwright et al. (US 10,969,675).
Regarding claim 1, Yaroshchuk teaches an optical device (fig. 2) for augmented reality (¶40, switching the NED 100 between a VR device and an AR device) using total internal reflection (¶42, the image light 230 propagate internally in the waveguide 210 (e.g., by total internal reflection)), the optical device comprising, an optical means (waveguide 210) for transmitting at least part of real object image light which is image light output (¶41, light source 220 may be a display panel, such as a liquid crystal display (LCD) panel) from a real object, therethrough toward a pupil of an eye of a user (¶42, waveguide 210 may expanded image light 230 to an eye 265 of the user); wherein a total internal reflection space configured to transfer augmented reality image light output from an image output unit (¶41, light source 220 may be a display panel, such as a liquid crystal display (LCD) panel) toward the pupil of the eye (265) of the user is formed in a shape of an empty space inside the optical means (210); wherein the total internal reflection space (¶41, TIR) is formed so that the augmented reality image light (¶41, NED for AR) transferred to the total internal reflection space (total internal reflection (TIR) occurs in the waveguide 210, and the image light 230 may propagate internally in the waveguide 210 (e.g., by total internal reflection)) through an inside of the optical means (210) is allowed to be reflected by total internal reflection on a boundary surface between the total internal reflection space (¶41, TIR) and the optical means (210) and the transferred toward (image light 230) the pupil of the eye (265) of the user. Yaroshchuk does not specifically teaches wherein the total internal reflection space is filled with a medium having an index of refraction lower than an index of refraction of the optical means; and wherein the optical means has a first surface and a second surface that are disposed opposite to each other, wherein the first surface is a surface which the real object image light enters and the second surface is a surface through which the augmented reality image light reflected by total internal reflection on the total internal reflection space and the real object image light passed through the first surface of the optical means are output toward the pupil of the eye of the user; wherein the total internal reflection space is formed inside the optical means and spaced apart from the first surface and the second surface. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Kim teaches an optical device for augmented reality (page 3, wearer can realize an augmented reality), wherein the total internal reflection space is filled with a medium having an index of refraction lower than an index of refraction of the optical means (page 3, if the outer diameter is not visible through the prism 100 and only the image provided by the head mount display is configured to be visible, the reflective surface S4 is formed as a total reflection surface S4 that reflects light other than the transflective surface by 100%, note: To achieve total internal reflection at the reflective surface S4, the refractive index of the optical means (such as a prism) must be higher than that of the surrounding medium, this is because the total internal reflection occurs when the light moves from a denser medium which is the higher refractive index to a less dense one which is a lower refractive index, therefore ensuring complete reflection of light at the boundary. Shown in figure 2 indicates that the optical means must have a higher refractive index than the surrounding medium, allowing the reflective surface S4 to reflect light entirely and meet the condition for total internal reflection.); and wherein the optical means has a first surface (S2) and a second surface (S3) that are disposed opposite to each other, wherein the first surface (S2) is a surface which the real object image light (shown in fig. 2; light enters from the environment) enters and the second surface (S3) is a surface through which the augmented reality image light (page 3, lines 13-15, augmented reality) reflected by total internal reflection on the total internal reflection space (page 9, lines 1-3, totally reflected) and the real object image light (shown in fig. 2 environment light) passed through the first surface (S2) of the optical means (prism 100) are output toward the pupil of the eye of the user (shown in fig. 2 output to user’s eye); wherein the total internal reflection space (page 9, lines 1-3, totally reflected) is formed inside the optical means and spaced apart (shown in fig. 2) from the first surface (S2) and the second surface (S3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the optical device of Yaroshchuk with wherein the total internal reflection space is filled with a medium having an index of refraction lower than an index of refraction of the optical means; and wherein the optical means has a first surface and a second surface that are disposed opposite to each other, wherein the first surface is a surface which the real object image light enters and the second surface is a surface through which the augmented reality image light reflected by total internal reflection on the total internal reflection space and the real object image light passed through the first surface of the optical means are output toward the pupil of the eye of the user; wherein the total internal reflection space is formed inside the optical means and spaced apart from the first surface and the second surface of Kim, for the purpose of producing image to the user (page 4). Yaroshchuk in view of Kim does not specifically teach wherein the total internal reflection space is formed spaced apart from an inner surface of the optical means and has a size of 4 mm or less. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Wheelwright teaches the device wherein the total internal reflection space is formed spaced apart from an inner surface of the optical means and has a size of 4 mm or less (fig. 4A, col. 13, lines 30-40, distance D corresponding to a distance between first reflector 420 and first scanning reflector 430 is equal to, or less than 3 mm, note: if D in fig. 4A is 3mm therefore the reflection space formed spaced apart from an inner surface of the optical mean is less than 3 mm; abstract, total internal reflection). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Yaroshchuk in view of Kim with wherein the total internal reflection space is formed spaced apart from an inner surface of the optical means and has a size of 4 mm or less of Wheelwright, for the purpose of maintaining a compact size (col. 13, lines 25-40).
Regarding claim 2, Yaroshchuk in view of Kim and Wheelwright teaches the invention as set forth above and Kim further teaches wherein the total internal reflection space is formed in an internal space of the optical means where an incident angle
θ
i
of the augmented reality image light entering the boundary surface between the total internal reflection space and the optical means satisfies
θ
i
≥
s
i
n
-
1
(
n
2
/
n
1
) (note: Critical Angle Formula) (where
n
1
is the index of refraction of the optical means, and
n
2
is the index of refraction of the medium filled in the total internal reflection space) based on locations of the image output unit and the pupil (fig. 1 and page 2, shown in fig. 2, wherein an incident surface (S1) is formed as a refractive surface through which an incident light is refracted, an outer surface (S2), which totally reflects the light incident on the incident surface (S1) at least once, is configured to form an acute angle with the incident surface (S1), and an inner surface (S3), which totally reflects the light reflected from the outer surface (S2) at least once, is configured to form an obtuse angle with the incident surface (S1)). Motivation to combine is the same as in claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Yaroshchuk in view of Kim and Wheelwright teaches the invention as set forth above and Kim further teaches fig. 1 and page 2, shown in fig. 2, wherein an incident surface (S1) is formed as a refractive surface through which an incident light is refracted, an outer surface (S2), which totally reflects the light incident on the incident surface (S1) at least once, is configured to form an acute angle with the incident surface (S1), and an inner surface (S3), which totally reflects the light reflected from the outer surface (S2) at least once, is configured to form an obtuse angle with the incident surface (S1) but does not specifically teach wherein an inside of the total internal reflection space is formed as a vacuum (note: considered to have a refractive index of 1). However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the materials of Yaroshchuk in the optical device of Kim with a reasonable expectation of success because it is a substitution of one know element for another to obtain predictable results. One has been motivated to choose the total internal reflection to be formed of a vacuum for the purpose of producing image to the user (page 4). Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Regarding claim 4, Yaroshchuk in view of Kim and Wheelwright teaches the invention as set forth above and Kim further teaches fig. 1 and page 2, shown in fig. 2, wherein an incident surface (S1) is formed as a refractive surface through which an incident light is refracted, an outer surface (S2), which totally reflects the light incident on the incident surface (S1) at least once, is configured to form an acute angle with the incident surface (S1), and an inner surface (S3), which totally reflects the light reflected from the outer surface (S2) at least once, is configured to form an obtuse angle with the incident surface (S1) but does not specifically teach wherein an inside of the total internal reflection space is formed as a vacuum (note: considered to have a refractive index of 1). However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the materials of Yaroshchuk in the optical device of Kim with a reasonable expectation of success because it is a substitution of one know element for another to obtain predictable results. One has been motivated to choose the medium filled in an inside of the total internal reflection space is a gas, liquid or solid having an index of refraction lower than the index of refraction of the optical means for the purpose of producing image to the user (page 4). Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Regarding claim 5, Yaroshchuk in view of Kim and Wheelwright teaches the invention as set forth above and Kim further teaches fig. 1 and page 2, shown in fig. 2, wherein an incident surface (S1) is formed as a refractive surface through which an incident light is refracted, an outer surface (S2), which totally reflects the light incident on the incident surface (S1) at least once, is configured to form an acute angle with the incident surface (S1), and an inner surface (S3), which totally reflects the light reflected from the outer surface (S2) at least once, is configured to form an obtuse angle with the incident surface (S1) but does not specifically teach wherein an inside of the total internal reflection space is formed as a vacuum (note: considered to have a refractive index of 1). However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the materials of Yaroshchuk in the optical device of Kim with a reasonable expectation of success because it is a substitution of one know element for another to obtain predictable results. One has been motivated to the medium filled in the total internal reflection space is a phase- change material that changes into a crystalline phase and an amorphous phase depending on a temperature or pressure condition and thus a difference in an index of refraction occurs (page 4). Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Regarding claim 6, Yaroshchuk in view of Kim and Wheelwright teaches the invention as set forth above and Kim further teaches wherein the total internal reflection space is formed in a prism shape (prism 100). Motivation to combine is the same as in claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Yaroshchuk in view of Kim and Wheelwright teaches the invention as set forth above and Kim further teaches in the total internal reflection space, a diffuse reflection surface (page 10, claim 5, the prism is formed as an uneven surface so that light is diffused) configured to diffusely reflect light is formed on at least one of surfaces other than the total internal reflection surface (page 3,) configured to reflect the augmented reality image light (page 3, wearer can realize an augmented reality) by total internal reflection (page 3, if the outer diameter is not visible through the prism 100 and only the image provided by the head mount display is configured to be visible, the reflective surface S4 is formed as a total reflection surface S4 that reflects light other than the transflective surface by 100%, note: To achieve total internal reflection at the reflective surface S4, the refractive index of the optical means (such as a prism) must be higher than that of the surrounding medium, this is because the total internal reflection occurs when the light moves from a denser medium which is the higher refractive index to a less dense one which is a lower refractive index, therefore ensuring complete reflection of light at the boundary. Shown in figure 2 indicates that the optical means must have a higher refractive index than the surrounding medium, allowing the reflective surface S4 to reflect light entirely and meet the condition for total internal reflection.). Motivation to combine is the same as in claim 1.
Claims 8, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yaroshchuk et al. (US 20210191122) in view of Kim et al. (KR 20150026486) and Wheelwright et al. (US 10,969,675) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park et al. (US 11,686,943).
Regarding claim 8, Yaroshchuk in view of Kim and Wheelwright teaches the invention as set forth above but does not specifically teach at least one of boundary surfaces between the total internal reflection space and the optical means is formed as a concave or convex surface. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Park teaches the optical device, wherein at least one of boundary surfaces between the total internal reflection space (rim1, rim2, rim3 shown in fig. 3) and the optical means (LS, shown in fig. 3) is formed as a concave or convex surface (shown in fig. 7A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the optical device of Yaroshchuk in view of Kim and Wheelwright with at least one of boundary surfaces between the total internal reflection space and the optical means is formed as a concave or convex surface of Park, for the purpose of the FOV of the augmented reality providing device may be widened without increasing a thickness of the lens (col. 10, lines 45-55).
Regarding claim 13, Yaroshchuk in view of Kim, Wheelwright and Park teaches the invention as set forth above but the total internal reflection space includes a plurality of total internal reflection spaces. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Park further teaches the total internal reflection space includes a plurality of total internal reflection spaces (RIM1 to RIM3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the optical device of Yaroshchuk in view of Kim and Park with the total internal reflection space includes a plurality of total internal reflection spaces of Park, for the purpose of widen an area of the display module viewed to the user’s eye (col. 5, lines 25-31).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yaroshchuk et al. (US 20210191122) in view of Kim et al. (KR 20150026486) and Wheelwright et al. (US 10,969,675) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Urey et al. (US 20180003962).
Regarding claim 9, Yaroshchuk in view of Kim and Wheelwright teaches the invention as set forth above but does not specifically teach the total internal reflection space is formed in a Fresnel lens shape. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Urey teaches the optical device, wherein the total internal reflection space is formed in a Fresnel lens shape (fig. 67 to 69, ¶288). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the optical device of Yaroshchuk in view of Kim and Wheelwright with the total internal reflection space is formed in a Fresnel lens shape of Urey, for the purpose of creating a converging light beam (¶288).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yaroshchuk et al. (US 20210191122) in view of Kim et al. (KR 20150026486) and Wheelwright et al. (US 10,969,675) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Martinez et al. (US 10,146,054).
Regarding claim 10, Yaroshchuk in view of Kim, Wheelwright and Martinez teaches the invention as set forth above but does not specifically teach the total internal reflection space is a diffractive optical element or a holographic element. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Martinez teaches the optical device (fig. 4C), wherein the total internal reflection space is a diffractive optical element or a holographic element (hologram 455 and col. 6, lines 54-60). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the optical device of Yaroshchuk in view of Kim, Wheelwright and Martinez with the total internal reflection space is a diffractive optical element or a holographic element of Martinez, for the purpose of providing color correction for chromatic aberration induced (col. 6, lines 50-60).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yaroshchuk et al. (US 20210191122) in view of Kim et al. (KR 20150026486) and Wheelwright et al. (US 10,969,675) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamazaki et al. (US 7,019,909).
Regarding claim 11, Yaroshchuk in view of Kim and Wheelwright teaches the invention as set forth above and Kim further teaches at least one of surfaces other than the total internal reflection surface of the total internal reflection space for total internal reflection fig. 1 and page 2, shown in fig. 2, wherein an incident surface (S1) is formed as a refractive surface through which an incident light is refracted, an outer surface (S2), which totally reflects the light incident on the incident surface (S1) at least once, is configured to form an acute angle with the incident surface (S1), and an inner surface (S3), which totally reflects the light reflected from the outer surface (S2) at least once, is configured to form an obtuse angle with the incident surface (S1) but does not specifically teach wherein an inside of the total internal reflection space is formed as a vacuum (note: considered to have a refractive index of 1) of the augmented reality image light (page 3, wearer can realize an augmented reality) but does not specifically teach wherein a surface is coated with a blocking material that blocks light. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Yamazaki teaches the optical device, wherein a surface is coated with a blocking material that blocks light (col. 5, lines 5-15, the return reflection surface is preferably a surface having only a reflecting action and is applied metal mirror coating for reflecting almost 100% of light). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the optical device of Yaroshchuk in view of Kim and Wheelwright with wherein a surface is coated with a blocking material that blocks light of Yamazaki, for the purpose of reducing a loss in an amount of light as much as possible (col. 5, lines 5-15).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY DUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-0534. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pinping Sun can be reached at (571)270-1284. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HENRY DUONG/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872 02/07/26