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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 17/792,383 filed on July 12, 2022 is presented for examination by the examiner.
The amended claims submitted June 3, 2026 in response to the office action mailed February 3, 2026 are under examination. Claims 1, 5, 7-11, 15 and 17-19 are pending. Claims 2-4, 6, 12-14 and 16 are canceled.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 3, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Under the heading “Response to the Examiner’s Response to Arguments” on page 5 of 12 of the remarks the applicant summarizes the pervious response to arguments and then states “The introduction of Kimmel does not render Applicant's arguments moot, nor does it cure the fundamental structural and functional deficiencies of Seesselberg. As detailed below, the proposed combination of Seesselberg and Kimmel is unwarranted and fails to teach or suggest the structural limitations of amended independent claims 1 and 11.” These are merely opening statements of the positions that the applicant will be presenting below, not specific addressable arguments.
In the first paragraph under the heading “Rejections of Claims 1, 11, and 18 under 35 USC §103 on page 5 of 12 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant summarizes the rejections of claims 1 and 18 over the combination of Seesselberg and Kimmel. This summary seems to suggest that the motivation for the combination of references was merely “to achieve greater independent control”. This is not accurate. The modification of Seesselberg in view of Kimmel was fully analyzed under the rubric of the substitution of one known element for another which obtains predictable results. The applicant then introduces that the Applicant respectfully disagrees for the following reasons. No specific argument is made in this paragraph.
In the paragraph spanning pages 5 and 6 of 12 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant first notes that “The Examiner maps the claimed "first display" and "second display" to Seesselberg's "first display [portion] (portion of the display for the right eye with liquid crystal layer 21)" and "second display [portion] (portion of the display for the left eye with liquid crystal layer 22)" (Office Action, p. 5).” This is accurate.
Next in the paragraph spanning pages 5 and 6 of 12 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues “As has been established, Seesselberg teaches a single, indivisible imaging element 2 (Seesselberg at [0034]). Elements 21 and 22 are not portions of a display; they are separate, non- pixelated liquid crystal layers of a bipartite liquid crystal stop 20 (Seesselberg at [0050]; Fig. 4). Structurally, a "display" is an active, pixelated image-generating device. A liquid crystal stop or shutter is a uniform optical gate that merely blocks or passes light without generating an image.” This argument is not persuasive for at least the following reasons. Firstly, that the image generating element of Seesselberg is formed in one piece is not at issue. Secondly, the applicant’s argument that Elements 21 and 22 are not portions of a display; they are separate, non- pixelated liquid crystal layers of a bipartite liquid crystal stop 20 (Seesselberg at [0050]; Fig. 4) is merely applicant choosing how they would have or would not have identified corresponding elements in the art. Contrary to applicant’s assertion, there is nothing unusual about considering additional optical elements that lie above pixelated image-generating device in the path of the image light therefrom as being part of the display. Lastly, the applicant’s argument that the liquid crystal stop by itself would not usually be construed as a display is not pertinent to the rejection at hand.
In the first full paragraph of page 6 of 12 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that “If, however, one were to substitute Seesselberg's single display (imaging element 2) with Kimmel's separate displays, the original liquid crystal stops (21, 22) would remain in the modified system. This would yield a technically redundant and nonsensical design, with two independent image- forming displays feeding light into two separate, active optical shutters (stops 21, 22). The shutters in Seesselberg serve to time-multiplex a single display. If separate displays are used, the shutters are entirely unnecessary. The Examiner's proposed substitution fails to account for the structure and function of Seesselberg's stops 21 and 22, demonstrating that the combination is a result of hindsight reconstruction rather than a logical engineering modification.”
In this argument, the applicant has constructed a different modification of Seeselberg than was proposed, and then argued that the modification that they just constructed would have been redundant, nonsensical and be a result of hindsight reconstruction rather than a logical engineering modification. This argument is not persuasive for at least the following reasons. The rejection of record replaced the first display portion and the second display portion, which included the shutters 21 and 22, with two displays as taught by Kimmel. Thus, there is nothing “redundant and nonsensical” about the actual modification made in the rejection. These adjectives only apply to the hindsight reconstruction provided by the applicant. To put it another way, “A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). “[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account “the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. See MPEP §2141.03(I). Each of the additional choices and modifications that an ordinary skilled artisan would know to perform when making the proposed modification (such as avoiding duplicative parts) do not have to be individually spelled out by the rejection. Rather obviousness findings under 35 USC §103 assume that the person performing any modification is one of ordinary skill.
In lines 16-24 of page 6 of 12 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that Seesselberg's principle of operation is time-sequential temporal multiplexing whereas “the claimed invention” operates on a spatially-parallel principle. It uses two separate, concurrently active displays to project two distinct images simultaneously. Thus, replacing a temporal-division single-display system with a spatial-division dual-display system fundamentally changes the principle of operation of Seesselberg's device. This argument is not persuasive for at least the following reasons. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., concurrently displaying two images simultaneously) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Since this method of operation is not yet reflected in the claims, the Office has not needed to consider whether changing a sequential display with a simultaneous display would or would not have been obvious. Furthermore, even assuming arguendo that “time-sequential temporal multiplexing” constitutes a “fundamental principle of operation” of Seesselberg, which the examiner does not in anyway concede, given the present claim language there is no reason why the current modification would need to also switch to simultaneous displaying of the two images.
In lines 25-29 of page 6 of 12 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant introduces that they will be arguing that the proposed modification is incompatible with Seesselberg’s architecture, requiring a complete non-obvious redesign, amounting to an impermissible reconstruction. No specific argument is made in these paragraphs, rather the analysis underlying this conclusion is in the portions that follow.
From the last two lines of page 6 of 12 through line 11 of page 7 of 12 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant alleges that by introducing a gap between the two displaying portions as would occur if the single display were replaced with two displays on either side of the optical axis that such a modification would result in the light exiting the lens 4 will take a different angle than it did in the original design which would then fail to be the proper angle for the diffraction gratings. Thus the modification would render the apparatus inoperable for its intended use. This argument is not persuasive for at least the following reasons. Counsel's assertion that light from adjacent displays would necessarily be emitted at different angles than light from two halves of a single display is merely an argument unaccompanied by evidentiary support, and, thus, is insufficient to rebut Examiner's finding of obviousness. Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.”). MPEP §§ 2145, 716.01(c). Moreover, this conjecture is unfounded. The display of Seesselberg already emits light throughout the left- and right-hand sides including positions significantly distant from the optical axis of the lens, and yet these reach the gratings at the proper angles. There is nothing about the act of introducing an area from which light is not emitted between two adjacent displays that would result in a change of the angle of the emitted light.
In the first full paragraph of page 7 of 12 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant alleges that the proposed modification would necessarily throw away the elements needed to provide the two orthogonal polarizations, TE and TM, such that the subsequent optical elements of Seesselberg would no longer function as designed. The applicant then reiterates their conjecture that light from two displays would be oblique causing massive optical crosstalk, polarization mismatch, and severe ghosting between the eyes. This argument is not persuasive for at least the following reasons. The applicant’s allegation that two adjacent displays cannot be constructed in a manner that the correct polarization of light is emitted therefrom is without basis in fact or physics. Given that an ordinary skilled artisan, such as Seesselberg, can design a single display to provide the proper polarizations, then such an artisan can apply those principles to construct two adjacent displays that each emit the proper polarizations. Secondly, as noted above, the conjecture that two displays would change the angle of the light emitted therefrom is both unsupported by facts and unlikely. Thus there is no evidence that the listed negative consequences would occur.
In the second full paragraph of page 7 of 12, the applicant first argues “Thirdly, to actually implement Seesellberg's arrangement with two displays, one would have to: (1) discard the single display 2, (2) discard the liquid crystal stops 21 and 22”. This argument is not persuasive. Choosing the word “discard” rather than “substitute” is merely using disparaging language for the same modification. The substitution of one known element for another which obtains predictable results is specifically laid out in MPEP §2143(I)(B) as one of the possible motivations for a modification of the art under 35 USC §103. Thus, the fact that the proposed modification replaces optical elements of Seesselberg for similar elements that are constructed as two displays cannot, in and of itself, be a persuasive argument that such a substitution is improper.
In the second full paragraph of page 7 of 12, the applicant next argues that to actually implement Seesellberg's arrangement with two displays, one would have to: (3) completely redesign/replace the collimation lens 4 to accommodate off-axis imaging without severe aberrations, and (4) completely redesign/replace the injection element 8 to remove the polarization-selective subgratings 15, 16 and the U/2 plate 5, and replace them with standard, spatially-separated coupling gratings. These arguments have been rebutted above. Specifically there is no evidence that the proposed modification would change the angle of the light emitted from the display, and an ordinary skilled artisan would know how to incorporate the proper, corresponding optical elements from the single display set-up to the adjacent display set-up to maintain the polarization-dependent optical functions.
Lastly in the second full paragraph of page 7 of 12, the applicant argues that Seesselberg contains no disclosure, suggestion, or motivation to modify its lens and grating system for two off-axis displays. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references from the primary reference of Seesselberg, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some rationale to do so. The rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992); see also In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370, 55 USPQ2d 1313, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (setting forth test for implicit teachings); In re Eli Lilly & Co., 902 F.2d 943, 14 USPQ2d 1741 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (discussion of reliance on legal precedent); In re Nilssen, 851 F.2d 1401, 1403, 7 USPQ2d 1500, 1502 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (references do not have to explicitly suggest combining teachings); Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985) (examiner must present convincing line of reasoning supporting rejection); and Ex parte Levengood, 28 USPQ2d 1300 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993) (reliance on logic and sound scientific reasoning), see MPEP §2144 (I) In this case, the obviousness determinations were considered under the rubric of established legal precedent.
In the paragraph spanning pages 7 of 12 and 8 of 12 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant concludes on the basis of the previously presented arguments that the proposed modification is a complete, hindsight-driven teardown and reconstruction of Seesselberg's optical architecture. Under established USPTO practice (MPEP § 2143), a modification is improper if it requires such extensive reconstruction that it effectively destroys the primary reference's structural and operational identity. This argument is not persuasive at least for all of the reasons explained above. To summarize, the extensive reconstructions alleged by applicant either stem from unfounded conjectures regarding how light emitted from two adjacent displays would be angled relative to light from two separated portions of a single display, or from a modification constructed by the applicant themselves where an ordinary skilled artisan threw out all of the knowledge in the art and teachings from Seesselberg when making the proposed modification. Neither of these arguments are persuasive as duly explained above.
From the first full paragraph of page 8 of 12 through line 7 of page 9 of 12 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that the proposed Seesselberg-Kimmel combination fails to teach that the optical axis does not intersect the first display and does not intersect the second display. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Seesselberg already teaches that image light on one side of the optical axis propagates through the optical system to the right-eye of the wearer, while image light from the other side of the optical axis propagates through the optical system to the left-eye of the wearer. Accordingly, an ordinary skilled artisan making the proposed modification already knows from where the two images should be emitted. Thus, the applicant’s argument that Kimmel would need to provide a teaching of how to arrange the two displays in the proposed modification is unfounded. Rather, as explained in the rejections above, the limitations “the optical axis does not intersect the first display, and the optical axis does not intersect the second display” naturally flow from the combination of references without the need for any additional modification.
Under the heading “Rejection of Claims 1, 7, 11, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103” on pages 9 and 10 of 12 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that the combination of Robbins in view of Seesselberg and Kimmel fails to meet the limitations that the optical axis does not intersect the first display and does not interest the second display because none of references, taken individually, anticipate this limitation. That this limitation is not anticipated is not a point of disagreement. However, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As explained in the rejection above, Robbins teaches that the apparatus may have either a single display or two displays (see paragraph [0099]). Seesselberg teaches that a first display portion configured to generate a first image and a second display portion configured to generate a second image should be arranged on opposite sides of the optical axis of the lens system. Kimmel teaches that a display apparatus may be made of one or more display panels. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the two displays of Robbins as two display panels as taught by Kimmel on opposite sides of the optical axis of the collimation lens as taught by Seesselberg. Such an arrangement also meets the limitations “the optical axis does not intersect the first display, and the optical axis does not intersect the second display”. One would have been motivated to choose such a configuration because both Robbins and Kimmel teach that there could be either one display, or two displays, one for each image (see Robbins paragraph [0099] and Kimmel Fig. 5 and paragraphs [0027]-[0028]), Robbins is silent regarding how the two displays would be arranged, and Seesselberg shows that one appropriate configuration for the generation of first and second images is to have the first display portion and the second display portion arranged on opposite sides of the optical axis.
To put it another way, one cannot ignore the teachings of Seesselberg that show how images for the left and right eyes should be displayed as one image on one side of the optical axis and a second image on a second side of the optical axis when determining where to position the two displays in Robbins.
Under the headings “Rejection of Claims 5 and 15 Under 35 USC §103”; “Rejection of Claims 8 and 9 Under 35 USC §103” and “Rejection of Claim 10 Under 35 USC §103” on pages 10 and 11 of 12 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that the dependent claims 5, 8-10 and 15 are patentable for at least the reasons argued above for claims 1 and 11, and that the additional references do not remedy the alleged deficiencies of Seesselberg, Kimmel and Robbins. The arguments with respect to claims 1 and 11 have been addressed above. The argument that the additional references do not remedy the alleged deficiencies of Seesselberg, Kimmel and Robbins is not pertinent to the rejections above, because these references are not relied upon for teaching the limitations in question.
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, 11 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seesselberg et al. US 2010/0134534 A1 (hereafter Seesselberg) in view of Kimmel et al. US 2018/0143437 A1 (hereafter Kimmel).
Regarding claim 1, Seesselberg teaches (Figs. 1 and 4) “An apparatus (display unit 1) comprising:
at least one waveguide (transparent planar plate 6) having an in-coupler (injection element 8);
a first display [portion] (portion of the display for the right eye with liquid crystal layer 21) configured to generate a first image (e.g. paragraph [0055] “right… partial image”) and a second display [portion] (portion of the display for the left eye with liquid crystal layer 22) configured to generate a second image (e.g. paragraph [0055]: “left partial image”); and
a lens system (collimation lens 4, which is still present in Fig. 4 see note in paragraph [0050]) configured to direct the first image and the second image onto the in-coupler (see Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0036]-[0037]), the lens system having an optical axis (the central optical axis of collimation lens 4), with the first display and the second display [portions] arranged on opposite sides of the optical axis (see Figs. 1 and 4, 21 and 22 are arranged on opposite sides of the central optical axis of lens 4);
wherein the in-coupler is configured to couple the first image into the waveguide (paragraph [0052]: “the TE-polarized light impinging on the first subgrating 15 is diffracted into the m=+1 diffraction order”) using a positive diffractive order (paragraph [0052]: “the TE-polarized light impinging on the first subgrating 15 is diffracted into the m=+1 diffraction order”) and to couple the second image into the waveguide (paragraph [0052]: “the TE-polarized light impinging on the second subgrating 16 is diffracted into m=-1 diffraction order.”) using a negative diffractive order (paragraph [0052]: “the TE-polarized light impinging on the second subgrating 16 is diffracted into m=-1 diffraction order.”), the first image propagating in a first direction into the waveguide (towards the right eye) and the second image propagating in a second direction into the waveguide (towards the left eye),
the optical axis does not intersect the first display [portion] (see Fig. 4 21 and 22 are arranged on either side of the optical axis of 4, such that the optical axis does not intersect either display portion), and
the optical axis does not intersect the second display [portion] (see Fig. 4 21 and 22 are arranged on either side of the optical axis of 4, such that the optical axis does not intersect either display portion).”
However, Seeselberg does not discuss the right and left portions of the display as explicitly constituting a first display and a second display.
Kimmel teaches “An apparatus (Fig. 5) comprising:
at least one waveguide (light guide arrangement 100) having an in-coupler (diffraction gratings 111 and 112 in first in-coupling region 101 and the second in-coupling region 102);
a first display (paragraphs [0027]-[0028]: “Some or all of the display arrangements 21-23 may each comprise multiple display devices… Each of the first display arrangement 21, the second display arrangement 22 and the third display arrangement 23 may each comprise one or more display panels having an array of pixels”. Thus the display arrangement 21 can have a first display panel and a second display panel.) configured to generate a first image (31a paragraph [0035]: “a first portion 31a of first light 31 from the first display arrangement 21”) and a second display (paragraphs [0027]-[0028]: “Some or all of the display arrangements 21-23 may each comprise multiple display devices… Each of the first display arrangement 21, the second display arrangement 22 and the third display arrangement 23 may each comprise one or more display panels having an array of pixels”. Thus the display arrangement 21 can have a first display panel and a second display panel.) configured to generate a second image (31b paragraph [0036]: “a second portion 31b of the first light 31 from the first display arrangement 21”); and
a lens system (optical arrangement 21b which is depicted as a lens system and which collimates light see paragraph [0049]) configured to direct the first image and the second image onto the in- coupler (see Fig. 5), the lens system having an optical axis (the optical axis of 21b)…
wherein the in-coupler is configured to couple the first image into the waveguide (paragraph [0035]: “The first in-coupling region 101 is configured to in-couple a first portion 31a of first light 31 from the first display arrangement 21 into the EPE 100.”) … and to couple the second image into the waveguide (paragraph [0036]: “The second in-coupling region 102 is configured to in-couple a second portion 31b of the first light 31 from the first display arrangement 21 into the EPE 100”) … the first image propagating in a first direction into the waveguide (see Fig. 5 and paragraph [0035]: “The first portion 31a of the first light 31 is guided by the EPE 100 from the first in-coupling region 101 to the first out-coupling region 103.”) and the second image propagating in a second direction into the waveguide (paragraph [0036]: “The second portion 31b of the first light 31 is guided by the EPE 100 from the second in-coupling region 102 to the second out-coupling region 104.”).”
Kimmel further teaches (paragraphs [0027]-[0028]): “Some or all of the display arrangements 21-23 may each comprise multiple display devices…
Each of the first display arrangement 21, the second display arrangement 22 and the third display arrangement 23 may each comprise one or more display panels having an array of pixels, or a portion of a display panel having an array of pixels. The array of pixels may, for example, be arranged in columns and rows.”
It is a well-established proposition that the substitution of one known element for another which obtains predictable results is within ordinary skill. See MPEP §2143(I)(B). To reject a claim based on this rationale, Office personnel must articulate the following:
(1) a finding that the prior art contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components (step, element, etc.) with other components;
(2) a finding that the substituted components and their functions were known in the art;
(3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable; and
(4) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
In the instant case:
(1) the prior art, Seeselberg, teaches an apparatus which differs from the claimed apparatus by the substitution of the component of a single display having left and right portions on either side of the optical axis of the lens with the component of two display panels providing the left and right images
(2) the display arrangement comprising multiple display panels and its function were known in the art in view of Kimmel.
(3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted two adjacent display panels for the two adjacent display panel portions, and the results of the substitution would have predictably been the ability to control the two panels more independently;
(4) the Graham factual inquiries have been discussed above.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a display arrangement having two display panels as taught by Kimmel for a display arrangement having left and right display portions in the device of Seeselberg and the results thereof would have been predictable. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because Kimmel teaches both options as alternatives to one another, where how such a modification should be done must be within ordinary skill in the art given that it did not merit a depiction in a drawing.
Note that the combination of limitations “the first display and the second display arranged on opposite sides of the optical axis… the optical axis does not intersect the first display, and the optical axis does not intersect the second display” are considered to be taught by the combination of references. Seesselberg teaches that the display portion that produces the first image and the display portion that produces the second image are arranged on opposite sides of the optical axis, and the modification above serves to replace these display panel portions with two display panels. Thus, when taken in combination the first and second displays of the Seesselberg – Kimmel combination are arranged on opposite sides of the optical axis and do not intersect the optical axis.
Regarding claim 11, Seesselberg teaches (Figs. 1 and 4) “A method (see steps below) comprising:
generating a first image (e.g. paragraph [0055] “right… partial image”) with a first display [portion] (display for the right eye with liquid crystal layer 21) and a second image (e.g. paragraph [0055]: “left partial image”) with a second display [portion] (display for the left eye with liquid crystal layer 22);
and using a lens system (collimation lens 4, which is still present in Fig. 4 see note in paragraph [0050]), directing the first image and the second image (see Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0036]-[0037])onto an in-coupler (injection element 8) of a waveguide (transparent planar plate 6), the lens system having an optical axis (the central optical axis of collimation lens 4), with the first display and the second display are arranged on opposite sides of the optical axis (see Figs. 1 and 4, 21 and 22 are arranged on opposite sides of the central optical axis of lens 4);
wherein the in-coupler is configured to couple the first image into the waveguide (paragraph [0052]: “the TE-polarized light impinging on the first subgrating 15 is diffracted into the m=+1 diffraction order”) using a positive diffractive order (paragraph [0052]: “the TE-polarized light impinging on the first subgrating 15 is diffracted into the m=+1 diffraction order”) and to couple the second image into the waveguide (paragraph [0052]: “the TE-polarized light impinging on the second subgrating 16 is diffracted into m=-1 diffraction order.”) using a negative diffractive order (paragraph [0052]: “the TE-polarized light impinging on the second subgrating 16 is diffracted into m=-1 diffraction order.”), the first image propagating in a first direction into the waveguide (towards the right eye) and the second image propagating in a second direction into the waveguide (towards the left eye),
the optical axis does not intersect the first display [portion] (see Fig. 4 21 and 22 are arranged on either side of the optical axis of 4, such that the optical axis does not intersect either display portion), and
the optical axis does not intersect the second display [portion] (see Fig. 4 21 and 22 are arranged on either side of the optical axis of 4, such that the optical axis does not intersect either display portion).”
However, Seeselberg does not discuss the right and left portions of the display as explicitly constituting a first display and a second display.
Kimmel teaches “A method (see steps below) comprising:
generating a first image (31a paragraph [0035]: “a first portion 31a of first light 31 from the first display arrangement 21”) with a first display (paragraphs [0027]-[0028]: “Some or all of the display arrangements 21-23 may each comprise multiple display devices… Each of the first display arrangement 21, the second display arrangement 22 and the third display arrangement 23 may each comprise one or more display panels having an array of pixels”. Thus the display arrangement 21 can have a first display panel and a second display panel.) and a second image (31b paragraph [0036]: “a second portion 31b of the first light 31 from the first display arrangement 21”) with a second display (paragraphs [0027]-[0028]: “Some or all of the display arrangements 21-23 may each comprise multiple display devices… Each of the first display arrangement 21, the second display arrangement 22 and the third display arrangement 23 may each comprise one or more display panels having an array of pixels”. Thus the display arrangement 21 can have a first display panel and a second display panel.); and
using a lens system (optical arrangement 21b which is depicted as a lens system and which collimates light see paragraph [0049]), directing the first image and the second image (see Fig. 5) onto an in-coupler of a waveguide (diffraction gratings 111 and 112 in first in-coupling region 101 and the second in-coupling region 102), the lens system having an optical axis (the optical axis of 21b), …
wherein the in-coupler is configured to couple the first image into the waveguide (paragraph [0035]: “The first in-coupling region 101 is configured to in-couple a first portion 31a of first light 31 from the first display arrangement 21 into the EPE 100.”)… and to couple the second image into the waveguide (paragraph [0036]: “The second in-coupling region 102 is configured to in-couple a second portion 31b of the first light 31 from the first display arrangement 21 into the EPE 100”)… the first image propagating in a first direction into the waveguide (see Fig. 5 and paragraph [0035]: “The first portion 31a of the first light 31 is guided by the EPE 100 from the first in-coupling region 101 to the first out-coupling region 103.”) and the second image propagating in a second direction into the waveguide (paragraph [0036]: “The second portion 31b of the first light 31 is guided by the EPE 100 from the second in-coupling region 102 to the second out-coupling region 104.”).”
Kimmel further teaches (paragraphs [0027]-[0028]): “Some or all of the display arrangements 21-23 may each comprise multiple display devices…
Each of the first display arrangement 21, the second display arrangement 22 and the third display arrangement 23 may each comprise one or more display panels having an array of pixels, or a portion of a display panel having an array of pixels. The array of pixels may, for example, be arranged in columns and rows.”
It is a well-established proposition that the substitution of one known element for another which obtains predictable results is within ordinary skill. See MPEP §2143(I)(B). To reject a claim based on this rationale, Office personnel must articulate the following:
(1) a finding that the prior art contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components (step, element, etc.) with other components;
(2) a finding that the substituted components and their functions were known in the art;
(3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable; and
(4) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
In the instant case:
(1) the prior art, Seeselberg, teaches an apparatus which differs from the claimed apparatus by the substitution of the component of a single display having left and right portions on either side of the optical axis of the lens with the component of two display panels providing the left and right images
(2) the display arrangement comprising multiple display panels and its function were known in the art in view of Kimmel.
(3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted two adjacent display panels for the two adjacent display panel portions, and the results of the substitution would have predictably been the ability to control the two panels more independently;
(4) the Graham factual inquiries have been discussed above.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a display arrangement having two display panels as taught by Kimmel for a display arrangement having left and right display portions in the device of Seeselberg and the results thereof would have been predictable. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because Kimmel teaches both options as alternatives to one another, where how such a modification should be done must be within ordinary skill in the art given that it did not merit a depiction in a drawing.
Note that the combination of limitations “the first display and the second display arranged on opposite sides of the optical axis… the optical axis does not intersect the first display, and the optical axis does not intersect the second display” are considered to be taught by the combination of references. Seesselberg teaches that the display portion that produces the first image and the display portion that produces the second image are arranged on opposite sides of the optical axis, and the modification above serves to replace these display panel portions with two display panels. Thus, when taken in combination the first and second displays of the Seesselberg – Kimmel combination are arranged on opposite sides of the optical axis and do not intersect the optical axis.
Regarding claim 18, the Seesselberg – Kimmel combination teaches “The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first and second displays are separated by a central space without a display (in the Seesselberg – Kimmel combination introduced above for claim 1, the left and right display portions of Seeselberg corresponding to first and second liquid crystal layers 21 and 22 were replaced with left and right display panels in view of Kimmel. Thus, just as is shown in Fig. 4 of Seesselberg there is a central space between the two displays. Note that the presence of elements in the central space such as a frame or black-matrix between the pixel areas of the displays is not considered to be precluded by the claim.).”
Regarding claim 19, the Seesselberg – Kimmel combination teaches “The method of claim 11, wherein the first and second displays are separated by a central space without a display (in the Seesselberg – Kimmel combination introduced above for claim 1, the left and right display portions of Seeselberg corresponding to first and second liquid crystal layers 21 and 22 were replaced with left and right display panels in view of Kimmel. Thus, just as is shown in Fig. 4 of Seesselberg there is a central space between the two displays. Note that the presence of elements in the central space such as a frame or black-matrix between the pixel areas of the displays is not considered to be precluded by the claim.).”
Claims 1, 7, 11 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robbins et al. US 2018/0113309 A1 in view of Seesselberg et al. US 2010/0134534 A1 (hereafter Seesselberg) and Kimmel et al. US 2018/0143437 A1 (hereafter Kimmel).
Regarding claim 1, Robbins teaches “An apparatus (optical waveguide 100) comprising:
at least one waveguide (bulk-substrate 106) having an in-coupler (input-coupler 112);
a first display (paragraph [0099]: “a first display engine”) configured to generate a first image (paragraph [0099]: “a first display engine may provide light of a first polarization… The two different polarizations of light will trace out the two different portions of the FOV as described above.” paragraph [0007]: “a positive first order diffraction of polarized image light”) and a second display (paragraph [0099]: “a second display engine”) configured to generate a second image (paragraph [0099]: “a second display engine may provide light of a second polarization orthogonal to the first polarization … The two different polarizations of light will trace out the two different portions of the FOV as described above.” paragraph [0007]: “at a second time, a negative first order diffraction of polarized image light”); and
a lens system (collimating lens 208) configured to direct the first image and the second image onto the in-coupler (paragraph [0051]: “The collimating lens 208 is arranged to receive a diverging display image from the image former 206, to collimate the display image, and to direct the collimated image toward the input-coupler 112 of the waveguide 100”), the lens system having an optical axis (the optical axis of collimating lens 208)…
wherein the in-coupler is configured to couple the first image into the waveguide (Fig. 5 paragraph [0065]: “the BPG 240a diffracts the incoming RHC polarized light in a positive first order (+1) in a first direction (to the right in the positive x-direction in FIG. 5)) using a positive diffractive order (Fig. 5 paragraph [0065]: “the BPG 240a diffracts the incoming RHC polarized light in a positive first order (+1) in a first direction (to the right in the positive x-direction in FIG. 5)) and to couple the second image into the waveguide (Fig. 6 paragraph [0066]: “the BPG 240b diffracts the incoming LHC polarized light in a negative first order (−1) in a second direction (to the left in the negative x-direction in FIG. 6).) using a negative diffractive order (Fig. 6 paragraph [0066]: “the BPG 240b diffracts the incoming LHC polarized light in a negative first order (−1) in a second direction (to the left in the negative x-direction in FIG. 6).), the first image propagating in a first direction into the waveguide (to the right in the positive x-direction in FIG. 5) and the second image propagating in a second direction into the waveguide (to the left in the negative x-direction in FIG. 6).”
However, Robbins fails to explicitly teach “with the first display and the second display arranged on opposite sides of the optical axis… the optical axis does not intersect the first display, and the optical axis does not intersect the second display.”
Seesselberg teaches (Figs. 1 and 4) “An apparatus (display unit 1) comprising:
at least one waveguide (transparent planar plate 6) having an in-coupler (injection element 8);
a first display [portion] (portion of the display for the right eye with liquid crystal layer 21) configured to generate a first image (e.g. paragraph [0055] “right… partial image”) and a second display [portion] (portion of the display for the left eye with liquid crystal layer 22) configured to generate a second image (e.g. paragraph [0055]: “left partial image”); and
a lens system (collimation lens 4, which is still present in Fig. 4 see note in paragraph [0050]) configured to direct the first image and the second image onto the in-coupler (see Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0036]-[0037]), the lens system having an optical axis (the central optical axis of collimation lens 4), with the first display and the second display [portions] arranged on opposite sides of the optical axis (see Figs. 1 and 4, 21 and 22 are arranged on opposite sides of the central optical axis of lens 4);
wherein the in-coupler is configured to couple the first image into the waveguide (paragraph [0052]: “the TE-polarized light impinging on the first subgrating 15 is diffracted into the m=+1 diffraction order”) using a positive diffractive order (paragraph [0052]: “the TE-polarized light impinging on the first subgrating 15 is diffracted into the m=+1 diffraction order”) and to couple the second image into the waveguide (paragraph [0052]: “the TE-polarized light impinging on the second subgrating 16 is diffracted into m=-1 diffraction order.”) using a negative diffractive order (paragraph [0052]: “the TE-polarized light impinging on the second subgrating 16 is diffracted into m=-1 diffraction order.”), the first image propagating in a first direction into the waveguide (towards the right eye) and the second image propagating in a second direction into the waveguide (towards the left eye),
the optical axis does not intersect the first display [portion] (see Fig. 4 21 and 22 are arranged on either side of the optical axis of 4, such that the optical axis does not intersect either display portion), and
the optical axis does not intersect the second display [portion] (see Fig. 4 21 and 22 are arranged on either side of the optical axis of 4, such that the optical axis does not intersect either display portion).”
Kimmel teaches “An apparatus (Fig. 5) comprising:
at least one waveguide (light guide arrangement 100) having an in-coupler (diffraction gratings 111 and 112 in first in-coupling region 101 and the second in-coupling region 102);
a first display (paragraphs [0027]-[0028]: “Some or all of the display arrangements 21-23 may each comprise multiple display devices… Each of the first display arrangement 21, the second display arrangement 22 and the third display arrangement 23 may each comprise one or more display panels having an array of pixels”. Thus the display arrangement 21 can have a first display panel and a second display panel.) configured to generate a first image (31a paragraph [0035]: “a first portion 31a of first light 31 from the first display arrangement 21”) and a second display (paragraphs [0027]-[0028]: “Some or all of the display arrangements 21-23 may each comprise multiple display devices… Each of the first display arrangement 21, the second display arrangement 22 and the third display arrangement 23 may each comprise one or more display panels having an array of pixels”. Thus the display arrangement 21 can have a first display panel and a second display panel.) configured to generate a second image (31b paragraph [0036]: “a second portion 31b of the first light 31 from the first display arrangement 21”); and
a lens system (optical arrangement 21b which is depicted as a lens system and which collimates light see paragraph [0049]) configured to direct the first image and the second image onto the in- coupler (see Fig. 5), the lens system having an optical axis (the optical axis of 21b)…
wherein the in-coupler is configured to couple the first image into the waveguide (paragraph [0035]: “The first in-coupling region 101 is configured to in-couple a first portion 31a of first light 31 from the first display arrangement 21 into the EPE 100.”) … and to couple the second image into the waveguide (paragraph [0036]: “The second in-coupling region 102 is configured to in-couple a second portion 31b of the first light 31 from the first display arrangement 21 into the EPE 100”) … the first image propagating in a first direction into the waveguide (see Fig. 5 and paragraph [0035]: “The first portion 31a of the first light 31 is guided by the EPE 100 from the first in-coupling region 101 to the first out-coupling region 103.”) and the second image propagating in a second direction into the waveguide (paragraph [0036]: “The second portion 31b of the first light 31 is guided by the EPE 100 from the second in-coupling region 102 to the second out-coupling region 104.”).”
Kimmel further teaches (paragraphs [0027]-[0028]): “Some or all of the display arrangements 21-23 may each comprise multiple display devices…
Each of the first display arrangement 21, the second display arrangement 22 and the third display arrangement 23 may each comprise one or more display panels having an array of pixels, or a portion of a display panel having an array of pixels. The array of pixels may, for example, be arranged in columns and rows.”
Robbins teaches that the apparatus may have either a single display or two displays (see paragraph [0099]).
Seesselberg teaches that a first display portion configured to generate a first image and a second display portion configured to generate a second image should be arranged on opposite sides of the optical axis of the lens system.
Kimmel teaches that a display apparatus may be made of one or more display panels.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the two displays of Robbins as two display panels as taught by Kimmel on opposite sides of the optical axis of the collimation lens as taught by Seesselberg. Such an arrangement also meets the limitations “the optical axis does not intersect the first display, and the optical axis does not intersect the second display”. One would have been motivated to choose such a configuration because both Robbins and Kimmel teach that there could be either one display, or two displays, one for each image (see Robbins paragraph [0099] and Kimmel Fig. 5 and paragraphs [0027]-[0028]), Robbins is silent regarding how the two displays would be arranged, and Seesselberg shows that one appropriate configuration for the generation of first and second images is to have the first display portion and the second display portion arranged on opposite sides of the optical axis.
Regarding claim 11, Robbins teaches “A method (see steps below) comprising:
generating a first image (paragraph [0099]: “a first display engine may provide light of a first polarization… The two different polarizations of light will trace out the two different portions of the FOV as described above.” paragraph [0007]: “a positive first order diffraction of polarized image light”) on a first display (paragraph [0099]: “a first display engine”) and a second image (paragraph [0099]: “a second display engine may provide light of a second polarization orthogonal to the first polarization … The two different polarizations of light will trace out the two different portions of the FOV as described above.” paragraph [0007]: “at a second time, a negative first order diffraction of polarized image light”) on a second display (paragraph [0099]: “a second display engine”);
and using a lens system (collimating lens 208), directing the first image and the second image (paragraph [0051]: “The collimating lens 208 is arranged to receive a diverging display image from the image former 206, to collimate the display image, and to direct the collimated image toward the input-coupler 112 of the waveguide 100”) onto an in-coupler (input-coupler 112) of a waveguide (bulk-substrate 106), the lens system having an optical axis (the optical axis of collimating lens 208)…
wherein the in-coupler is configured to couple the first image into the waveguide (Fig. 5 paragraph [0065]: “the BPG 240a diffracts the incoming RHC polarized light in a positive first order (+1) in a first direction (to the right in the positive x-direction in FIG. 5)) using a positive diffractive order (Fig. 5 paragraph [0065]: “the BPG 240a diffracts the incoming RHC polarized light in a positive first order (+1) in a first direction (to the right in the positive x-direction in FIG. 5)) and to couple the second image into the waveguide (Fig. 6 paragraph [0066]: “the BPG 240b diffracts the incoming LHC polarized light in a negative first order (−1) in a second direction (to the left in the negative x-direction in FIG. 6).) using a negative diffractive order (Fig. 6 paragraph [0066]: “the BPG 240b diffracts the incoming LHC polarized light in a negative first order (−1) in a second direction (to the left in the negative x-direction in FIG. 6).), the first image propagating in a first direction into the waveguide (to the right in the positive x-direction in FIG. 5) and the second image propagating in a second direction into the waveguide (to the left in the negative x-direction in FIG. 6).”
However, Robbins fails to explicitly teach “with the first display and the second display arranged on opposite sides of the optical axis… the optical axis does not intersect the first display, and the optical axis does not intersect the second display.”
Seesselberg teaches (Figs. 1 and 4) “A method (see steps below) comprising:
generating a first image (e.g. paragraph [0055] “right… partial image”) with a first display [portion] (display for the right eye with liquid crystal layer 21) and a second image (e.g. paragraph [0055]: “left partial image”) with a second display [portion] (display for the left eye with liquid crystal layer 22);
and using a lens system (collimation lens 4, which is still present in Fig. 4 see note in paragraph [0050]), directing the first image and the second image (see Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0036]-[0037])onto an in-coupler (injection element 8) of a waveguide (transparent planar plate 6), the lens system having an optical axis (the central optical axis of collimation lens 4), with the first display [portion] and the second display [portion] being arranged on opposite sides of the optical axis (see Figs. 1 and 4, 21 and 22 are arranged on opposite sides of the central optical axis of lens 4);
wherein the in-coupler is configured to couple the first image into the waveguide (paragraph [0052]: “the TE-polarized light impinging on the first subgrating 15 is diffracted into the m=+1 diffraction order”) using a positive diffractive order (paragraph [0052]: “the TE-polarized light impinging on the first subgrating 15 is diffracted into the m=+1 diffraction order”) and to couple the second image into the waveguide (paragraph [0052]: “the TE-polarized light impinging on the second subgrating 16 is diffracted into m=-1 diffraction order.”) using a negative diffractive order (paragraph [0052]: “the TE-polarized light impinging on the second subgrating 16 is diffracted into m=-1 diffraction order.”), the first image propagating in a first direction into the waveguide (towards the right eye) and the second image propagating in a second direction into the waveguide (towards the left eye),
the optical axis does not intersect the first display [portion] (see Fig. 4 21 and 22 are arranged on either side of the optical axis of 4, such that the optical axis does not intersect either display portion), and
the optical axis does not intersect the second display [portion] (see Fig. 4 21 and 22 are arranged on either side of the optical axis of 4, such that the optical axis does not intersect either display portion).”
Kimmel teaches “A method (see steps below) comprising:
generating a first image (31a paragraph [0035]: “a first portion 31a of first light 31 from the first display arrangement 21”) with a first display (paragraphs [0027]-[0028]: “Some or all of the display arrangements 21-23 may each comprise multiple display devices… Each of the first display arrangement 21, the second display arrangement 22 and the third display arrangement 23 may each comprise one or more display panels having an array of pixels”. Thus the display arrangement 21 can have a first display panel and a second display panel.) and a second image (31b paragraph [0036]: “a second portion 31b of the first light 31 from the first display arrangement 21”) with a second display (paragraphs [0027]-[0028]: “Some or all of the display arrangements 21-23 may each comprise multiple display devices… Each of the first display arrangement 21, the second display arrangement 22 and the third display arrangement 23 may each comprise one or more display panels having an array of pixels”. Thus the display arrangement 21 can have a first display panel and a second display panel.); and
using a lens system (optical arrangement 21b which is depicted as a lens system and which collimates light see paragraph [0049]), directing the first image and the second image (see Fig. 5) onto an in-coupler of a waveguide (diffraction gratings 111 and 112 in first in-coupling region 101 and the second in-coupling region 102), the lens system having an optical axis (the optical axis of 21b), …
wherein the in-coupler is configured to couple the first image into the waveguide (paragraph [0035]: “The first in-coupling region 101 is configured to in-couple a first portion 31a of first light 31 from the first display arrangement 21 into the EPE 100.”)… and to couple the second image into the waveguide (paragraph [0036]: “The second in-coupling region 102 is configured to in-couple a second portion 31b of the first light 31 from the first display arrangement 21 into the EPE 100”)… the first image propagating in a first direction into the waveguide (see Fig. 5 and paragraph [0035]: “The first portion 31a of the first light 31 is guided by the EPE 100 from the first in-coupling region 101 to the first out-coupling region 103.”) and the second image propagating in a second direction into the waveguide (paragraph [0036]: “The second portion 31b of the first light 31 is guided by the EPE 100 from the second in-coupling region 102 to the second out-coupling region 104.”).”
Kimmel further teaches (paragraphs [0027]-[0028]): “Some or all of the display arrangements 21-23 may each comprise multiple display devices…
Each of the first display arrangement 21, the second display arrangement 22 and the third display arrangement 23 may each comprise one or more display panels having an array of pixels, or a portion of a display panel having an array of pixels. The array of pixels may, for example, be arranged in columns and rows.”
Robbins teaches that the apparatus may have either a single display or two displays (see paragraph [0099]).
Seesselberg teaches that a first display portion configured to generate a first image and a second display portion configured to generate a second image should be arranged on opposite sides of the optical axis of the lens system.
Kimmel teaches that a display apparatus may be made of one or more display panels.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the two displays of Robbins as two display panels as taught by Kimmel on opposite sides of the optical axis of the collimation lens as taught by Seesselberg. Such an arrangement also meets the limitations “the optical axis does not intersect the first display, and the optical axis does not intersect the second display”. One would have been motivated to choose such a configuration because both Robbins and Kimmel teach that there could be either one display, or two displays, one for each image (see Robbins paragraph [0099] and Kimmel Fig. 5 and paragraphs [0027]-[0028]), Robbins is silent regarding how the two displays would be arranged, and Seesselberg shows that one appropriate configuration for the generation of first and second images is to have the first display portion and the second display portion arranged on opposite sides of the optical axis.
Regarding claim 7, the Robbins – Seeselberg – Kimmel combination teaches “The apparatus of claim 1,” and Robbins further teaches “wherein the waveguide further comprises an out-coupler (output-coupler 116) and at least one eye pupil expander (intermediate component 114a, paragraph [0031]: “the intermediate components 114a, 114b may be configured to perform one of horizontal or vertical pupil expansion”) along at least a first optical path from the in-coupler to the out-coupler (see Fig. 1A and paragraphs [0030]-[0031]).”
Regarding claim 17, the Robbins – Seeselberg – Kimmel combination teaches “The method of claim 11,” and Robbins further teaches “wherein the waveguide further comprises an out- coupler (output-coupler 116), at least a first eye pupil expander (intermediate component 114a, paragraph [0031]: “the intermediate components 114a, 114b may be configured to perform one of horizontal or vertical pupil expansion”) configured to guide the first image to the out-coupler (see Fig. 1A and paragraphs [0030]-[0031]), and at least a second eye pupil expander (intermediate component 114b, paragraph [0031]: “the intermediate components 114a, 114b may be configured to perform one of horizontal or vertical pupil expansion”) configured to guide the second image to the out-coupler (see Fig. 1A and paragraphs [0030]-[0031]).”
Regarding claim 18, the Robbins – Seeselberg – Kimmel combination teaches “the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first and second displays are separated by a central space without a display (in the Robbins – Seesselberg – Kimmel combination introduced above for claim 1, the left and right display portions of Seeselberg corresponding to first and second liquid crystal layers 21 and 22 were replaced with left and right display panels in view of Kimmel. Thus, just as is shown in Fig. 4 of Seesselberg there is a central space between the two displays. Note that the presence of elements in the central space such as a frame or black-matrix between the pixel areas of the displays is not considered to be precluded by the claim.).”
Regarding claim 19, the Robbins – Seeselberg – Kimmel combination teaches “the method of claim 11, wherein the first and second displays are separated by a central space without a display (in the Robbins – Seesselberg – Kimmel combination introduced above for claim 1, the left and right display portions of Seeselberg corresponding to first and second liquid crystal layers 21 and 22 were replaced with left and right display panels in view of Kimmel. Thus, just as is shown in Fig. 4 of Seesselberg there is a central space between the two displays. Note that the presence of elements in the central space such as a frame or black-matrix between the pixel areas of the displays is not considered to be precluded by the claim.).”
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robbins et al. US 2018/0113309 A1 in view of Seesselberg et al. US 2010/0134534 A1 (hereafter Seesselberg) and Kimmel et al. US 2018/0143437 A1 (hereafter Kimmel) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of WO 2009083977 A2 (hereafter WO 977).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, the Robbins -Seeselberg – Kimmel combination teaches the apparatus of claim 1 and the method of claim 11, however, Robbins fails to teach “wherein the in-coupler is configured to couple at least one of the first image and the second image into the waveguide using a diffractive order having an absolute value higher than one.”
WO 977 teaches (claim 1) “An apparatus (optical relay device 10) comprising:
at least one waveguide (substrate 14) having an in-coupler (input optical element 13);
a first display (object 34 which can be a display panel, see page 12 lines 3-4) configured to generate a first image (image that will be 18a) and … a second image (image that will be 18b); and
a lens system (collimating system 44) configured to direct the first image and the second image onto the in-coupler (see Fig. 2);
wherein the in-coupler is configured (e.g. page 16 lines 8-9: “the input optical element and output optical element are diffraction gratings”) to use different diffractive orders (e.g. page 28 lines 2-3: “the light is diffracted symmetrically into positive and negative diffraction orders.”) to couple the first image into the waveguide and to couple the second image into the waveguide (see Fig. 2).”
(claims 5 and 15) “wherein the in-coupler is configured to couple at least one of the first image and the second image into the waveguide using a diffractive order having an absolute value higher than one (pages 25-28, e.g. page 26 line 20 to page 27 line 4: “construction of the grating's profile such that for wavelengths of, say, 450-470 nm the dominant diffraction order is the third order, and for wavelengths of, say, 520-640 nm the dominant diffraction order is the second, results in a maximal difference between the mid diffraction angles which is about 48.4 - 34.7 = 13.7. This difference is significantly smaller that the maximal difference of 20° which is attainable when only first diffraction order is allowed.).”
WO 977 further teaches (page 25 lines 15-26): “Dominant coupling into a diffraction order |m| > 1 can reduce optical path difference between light rays of different colors. In various exemplary embodiments of the invention the shape of the grating's profile is selected such that different portions of the light, respectively corresponding to different sub-spectra of the polychromatic light, are dominantly coupled into different diffraction orders. Preferably, the spectrum of the polychromatic light is diffracted by the input and output gratings such that light rays belonging to a first sub-spectrum are efficiently and predominantly diffracted at a higher order than light rays belonging to a second sub-spectrum, where the first sub-spectrum corresponds to shorter wavelengths ( e.g., blue or near blue light) and the second subspectrum corresponds to longer wavelengths ( e.g., red or green light). Such construction reduces the difference in diffraction angles between the first and second sub-spectra hence also reduces the differences in optical paths.”
WO 977 also teaches (page 16 lines 8-10): “In some embodiments of the present invention, the input optical element and output optical element are diffraction gratings having a periodic profile selected such that all diffraction orders m satisfying |m| > 1 are suppressed.”
Robbins teaches the apparatus of claim 5 and the method of claim 15, except for using the +1 and -1 diffraction orders of the input coupler to couple the light into the waveguide. WO 977 teaches that one can use the +1 and -1 diffraction orders of the input coupler (page 16 lines 8-10), but that dominant coupling into higher diffraction orders is preferred because it reduces the difference in diffraction angles between the first and second sub-spectra when making a multicolor image, thus improving the full color images (WO 977 pages 25-28, e.g. the passages cited above).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the input coupler as taught by WO 977 such that the in-coupler is configured to couple at least one of the first image and the second image into the waveguide using a diffractive order having an absolute value higher than one as taught by WO 977, in the apparatus and method of Robbins for the purpose of reducing the difference in diffraction angles between image light of different colors as taught by WO 977 (pages 25-28, e.g. the passages cited above).
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seesselberg et al. US 2010/0134534 A1 (hereafter Seesselberg) in view of Kimmel et al. US 2018/0143437 A1 (hereafter Kimmel)as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of WO 2009083977 A2 (hereafter WO 977).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, the Seesselberg – Kimmel combination teaches the apparatus of claim 1 and the method of claim 11, however, Seesselberg fails to teach “wherein the in-coupler is configured to couple at least one of the first image and the second image into the waveguide using a diffractive order having an absolute value higher than one.”
WO 977 teaches (claim 1) “An apparatus (optical relay device 10) comprising:
at least one waveguide (substrate 14) having an in-coupler (input optical element 13);
a first display (object 34 which can be a display panel, see page 12 lines 3-4) configured to generate a first image (image that will be 18a) and … a second image (image that will be 18b); and
a lens system (collimating system 44) configured to direct the first image and the second image onto the in-coupler (see Fig. 2);
wherein the in-coupler is configured (e.g. page 16 lines 8-9: “the input optical element and output optical element are diffraction gratings”) to use different diffractive orders (e.g. page 28 lines 2-3: “the light is diffracted symmetrically into positive and negative diffraction orders.”) to couple the first image into the waveguide and to couple the second image into the waveguide (see Fig. 2).”
(claims 5 and 15) “wherein the in-coupler is configured to couple at least one of the first image and the second image into the waveguide using a diffractive order having an absolute value higher than one (pages 25-28, e.g. page 26 line 20 to page 27 line 4: “construction of the grating's profile such that for wavelengths of, say, 450-470 nm the dominant diffraction order is the third order, and for wavelengths of, say, 520-640 nm the dominant diffraction order is the second, results in a maximal difference between the mid diffraction angles which is about 48.4 - 34.7 = 13.7. This difference is significantly smaller that the maximal difference of 20° which is attainable when only first diffraction order is allowed.).”
WO 977 further teaches (page 25 lines 15-26): “Dominant coupling into a diffraction order |m| > 1 can reduce optical path difference between light rays of different colors. In various exemplary embodiments of the invention the shape of the grating's profile is selected such that different portions of the light, respectively corresponding to different sub-spectra of the polychromatic light, are dominantly coupled into different diffraction orders. Preferably, the spectrum of the polychromatic light is diffracted by the input and output gratings such that light rays belonging to a first sub-spectrum are efficiently and predominantly diffracted at a higher order than light rays belonging to a second sub-spectrum, where the first sub-spectrum corresponds to shorter wavelengths ( e.g., blue or near blue light) and the second subspectrum corresponds to longer wavelengths ( e.g., red or green light). Such construction reduces the difference in diffraction angles between the first and second sub-spectra hence also reduces the differences in optical paths.”
WO 977 also teaches (page 16 lines 8-10): “In some embodiments of the present invention, the input optical element and output optical element are diffraction gratings having a periodic profile selected such that all diffraction orders m satisfying |m| > 1 are suppressed.”
Seesselberg teaches the apparatus of claim 5 and the method of claim 15, except for using the +1 and -1 diffraction orders of the input coupler to couple the light into the waveguide. WO 977 teaches that one can use the +1 and -1 diffraction orders of the input coupler (page 16 lines 8-10), but that dominant coupling into higher diffraction orders is preferred because it reduces the difference in diffraction angles between the first and second sub-spectra when making a multicolor image, thus improving the full color images (WO 977 pages 25-28, e.g. the passages cited above).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the input coupler as taught by WO 977 such that the in-coupler is configured to couple at least one of the first image and the second image into the waveguide using a diffractive order having an absolute value higher than one as taught by WO 977, in the apparatus and method of Seesselberg for the purpose of reducing the difference in diffraction angles between image light of different colors as taught by WO 977 (pages 25-28, e.g. the passages cited above).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robbins et al. US 2018/0113309 A1 in view of Seesselberg et al. US 2010/0134534 A1 (hereafter Seesselberg) and Kimmel et al. US 2018/0143437 A1 (hereafter Kimmel) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Blomstedt et al. US 2021/0109347 A1 (hereafter Blomstedt).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, the Robbins -Seeselberg – Kimmel combination teaches “The apparatus of claim 1,” and Robbins further teaches (claim 8) “wherein the waveguide further comprises an out-coupler (output-coupler 116) and a first … eye pupil expander (first intermediate component 114a, paragraph [0031]: “the intermediate components 114a, 114b may be configured to perform one of horizontal or vertical pupil expansion”) along a first optical path from the in-coupler to the out-coupler (see Fig. 1A), the first … eye pupil expanders being configured to guide the first image to the out-coupler (see Fig. 1A and paragraphs [0030]-[0031])” and (claim 9) “wherein the waveguide further comprises a third … eye pupil expander (second intermediate component 114b, paragraph [0031]: “the intermediate components 114a, 114b may be configured to perform one of horizontal or vertical pupil expansion”) along a second optical path from the in-coupler to the out-coupler (see Fig. 1A), the third … eye pupil expanders being configured to guide the second image to the out-coupler (see Fig. 1A).”
However, Robbins fails to teach (claim 8) “a second eye pupil expander along a first optical path from the in-coupler to the out-coupler, the … second eye pupil expanders being configured to guide the first image to the out-coupler.” and (claim 9) “wherein the waveguide further comprises … a fourth eye pupil expander along a second optical path from the in-coupler to the out-coupler, the … fourth eve pupil expanders being configured to guide the second image to the out-coupler.”
Blomstedt teaches (claim 1) “An apparatus (Fig. 3) comprising:
at least one waveguide (paragraph [0006]: “waveguide body”) having an in-coupler (in-coupling grating 31);
… a first image (paragraph [0006] the portion of the incoming light which is diffracted in the +1 order in Fig. 1) and … a second image (paragraph [0006] the portion of the incoming light which is diffracted in the -1 order in Fig. 1); and
… direct the first image and the second image onto the in-coupler (paragraph [0006]: “The in-coupling grating is configured to couple incoming light into the waveguide body”);
wherein the in-coupler is configured to use different diffractive orders to couple the first image into the waveguide and to couple the second image into the waveguide (paragraph [0006]: “The in-coupling grating is configured to couple incoming light into the waveguide body into two separate directions using opposite diffraction orders for splitting the field of view of the incoming light.”).”
(claim 8) wherein the waveguide further comprises an out-coupler (out-coupling grating 34A) and a first and a second eye pupil expander (first EPE grating 32A and second EPE grating 33A) along a first optical path from the in-coupler to the out-coupler (see Fig. 3 and paragraph [0025]), the first and second eye pupil expanders being configured to guide the first image to the out-coupler (see Figs. 1 and 3 and paragraphs [0006] and [0025]).”
(claim 9) “wherein the waveguide further comprises a third and a fourth eye pupil expander (first EPE grating 32B and second EPE grating 33B) along a second optical path from the in-coupler to the out-coupler (see Fig. 3 and paragraph [0025]), the third and fourth eve pupil expanders being configured to guide the second image to the out-coupler (see Fig. 3 and paragraph [0025]).”
Blomstedt further teaches (paragraph [0025]): “By properly selecting the gratings vectors in this configuration, light rays can be fed through the out-coupler on the EPE gratings 33A, 33B without any diffraction. This can be seen from the wave vector analysis example shown in FIG. 4. Out-coupler diffracts the light rays coming from the first EPE gratings out-side the annulus, i.e. no diffraction occurs. Light transportation through the out-coupler on the EPE gratings enables smaller grating areas and thus better form factor for the waveguide.”
Robbins teaches the apparatus of claims 8 and 9 except for using only one eye pupil expander for each of the first and second optical paths prior to the out-coupling element. Blomstedt teaches that one can instead use two eye pupil expanders for each of the first and second optical paths prior to the out-coupling element. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use two eye pupil expanders for each of the first and second optical paths prior to the out-coupling element as taught by Blomstedt in the apparatus of Robbins for the purpose of enabling smaller grating areas and a better form factor for the waveguide as taught by Blomstedt (paragraph [0025]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robbins et al. US 2018/0113309 A1 in view of Seesselberg et al. US 2010/0134534 A1 (hereafter Seesselberg), Kimmel et al. US 2018/0143437 A1 (hereafter Kimmel) and Blomstedt et al. US 2021/0109347 A1 (hereafter Blomstedt) as applied to claim 8 above and further in view of WO 2009083977 A2 (hereafter WO 977).
Regarding claim 10, the Robbins – Seeselberg – Kimmel – Blomstedt combination teaches “The apparatus of claim 8,” however, Robbins does not explicitly teach “wherein a grating pitch Λe of at least one of the eye pupil expanders is 560 nm to 1,250 nm” because Robbins does not explicitly disclose the grating pitch or period that are used for the eye pupil expanders.
WO 977 teaches (claim 1) “An apparatus (optical relay device 10) comprising:
at least one waveguide (substrate 14) having an in-coupler (input optical element 13);
a first display (object 34 which can be a display panel, see page 12 lines 3-4) configured to generate a first image (image that will be 18a) and … a second image (image that will be 18b); and
a lens system (collimating system 44) configured to direct the first image and the second image onto the in-coupler (see Fig. 2);
wherein the in-coupler is configured (e.g. page 16 lines 8-9: “the input optical element and output optical element are diffraction gratings”) to use different diffractive orders (e.g. page 28 lines 2-3: “the light is diffracted symmetrically into positive and negative diffraction orders.”) to couple the first image into the waveguide and to couple the second image into the waveguide (see Fig. 2).”
(claim 10) wherein a grating pitch Λe is 560 nm to 1,250nm (page 23 lines 21-22: “a grating having a period of 0.52 µm” which is 520 nm; page 26 line 13 “a 1.25µm grating period” which is 1250 nm; Fig. 5a-b, page 27 “grating 70 has a periodic square wave profile with a period of 1300nm. Each period of the grating has three grooves 72a, 72b and 72c, and three ridges 74a, 74b and 74c. The two or more of grooves 72a-c or and ridges 74a-c can have different widths, as illustrated in Figure 5a.” Thus the overall grating pitch can be 1300 nm, with individual pitches on the order of 300 nm to 600 nm as shown in Fig. 5A.)
WO 977 further teaches (page 25 lines 15-26): “Dominant coupling into a diffraction order |m| > 1 can reduce optical path difference between light rays of different colors. In various exemplary embodiments of the invention the shape of the grating's profile is selected such that different portions of the light, respectively corresponding to different sub-spectra of the polychromatic light, are dominantly coupled into different diffraction orders. Preferably, the spectrum of the polychromatic light is diffracted by the input and output gratings such that light rays belonging to a first sub-spectrum are efficiently and predominantly diffracted at a higher order than light rays belonging to a second sub-spectrum, where the first sub-spectrum corresponds to shorter wavelengths ( e.g., blue or near blue light) and the second subspectrum corresponds to longer wavelengths ( e.g., red or green light). Such construction reduces the difference in diffraction angles between the first and second sub-spectra hence also reduces the differences in optical paths.”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the grating periods or pitches to be between 520 nm and 1,250 nm as taught by WO 977 in the apparatus of Robbins for the purpose of reducing the difference in diffraction angles between image light of different colors as taught by WO 977 (pages 25-28, e.g. the passages cited above).
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 CARA E RAKOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-4206. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-4PM ET 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, Thomas Pham can be reached on 571-272-3689. 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.
/CARA E RAKOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights