DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/04/2025, 07/02/2025, 08/27/2024, 05/05/2023, and 02/09/2023, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-8, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kobayashi (US 20210072552 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kobayashi teaches a system (Fig. 1-7) for adjusting a focal distance of an image displayed to a user at a designated eye point, comprising: a screen (12) configured to display the image depicting an object; a mirror (14) configured to reflect the image displayed by the screen (12) to the designated eye point, the mirror (14) spaced from the screen (12) by a distance that is variable ([0024]); and an adjustor (20, 22) configured to move the screen (12) to adjust the distance between the screen (12) and the mirror (14; [0024]).
Regarding claim 4, Kobayashi further teaches the screen (12) being at least one of a liquid-crystal display, an organic light-emitting diode display, a liquid crystal on silicon display, a light-emitting diode display, a quantum dot display, and a plasma display ([0022]).
Regarding claim 5, Kobayashi further teaches a projector (11) configured to project the image onto the screen (12), wherein the screen (12) is one of a front projection screen (12) and a back projection screen (12; [0022]).
Regarding claim 6, Kobayashi further teaches the projector (11) is a fixed distance from the screen (12), and wherein the adjustor (20, 22) is configured to move the screen (12) and the projector (11; Fig. 4, 6 and 7).
Regarding claim 7, Kobayashi further teaches the adjustor (20, 22) comprises a motor (26) for moving the screen (12) to adjust the distance ([0049], [0051]).
Regarding claim 8, Kobayashi further teaches the mirror (14) is stationary and the screen (12) is interconnected to a platform (38) of the adjustor (20, 22), and wherein the platform (38) is configured to move to adjust the distance between the screen (12) and the mirror (14; [0051]).
Regarding claim 10, Kobayashi further teaches the distance from the screen (12) to the mirror (14) correlates to the focal distance, wherein in a first position the screen (12) is a first distance from the mirror (14) and the focal distance is at infinity ([0025]), and wherein in a second position the screen (12) is a second distance from the mirror (14) and the focal distance is less than infinity, the first distance being greater than the second distance ([0025]).
Regarding claim 11, Kobayashi further teaches in the first position (focal position) light rays reflected from the mirror (14) are substantially parallel, i.e., image at infinity ([0025]).
Claims 1-3 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Murata (US 20220107497 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Murata teaches a system (Fig. 1-25) for adjusting a focal distance of an image displayed to a user at a designated eye point, comprising: a screen (427) configured to display the image depicting an object; a mirror (428) configured to reflect the image displayed by the screen (427) to the designated eye point, the mirror (428) spaced from the screen (427) by a distance that is variable ([0170]); and an adjustor (drive unit) configured to move the screen (427) to adjust the distance between the screen (427) and the mirror (428; [0170]).
Regarding claim 2, Murata further teaches a control system (425) in communication with the adjustor (drive unit), the control system (425) configured to: determine a focal distance for the image based on a simulated distance between the designated eye point and the object in the image; determine a simulated size of the object based on the simulated distance; generate instructions to cause the adjustor (drive unit) to adjust the distance between the screen (427) and the mirror (428) to achieve the focal distance; and adjust a size of the object in the image based on the determined simulated size ([0168]-[0170], [0173], [0174], [0190]-[0195]).
Regarding claim 3, Murata the control system (425) is further configured to generate the image ([0190])).
Regarding claim 18, Murata teaches a method (Fig. 1-25) for adjusting a focal distance of an image at a designated eye point (E), comprising: generating an image for display by a screen (427; Fig. 2 and 8), wherein the screen (427) is oriented such that the image is reflected by a mirror (428) to the designated eye point (E); determining a simulated distance between the designated eye point (E) and a simulated position of an object in the image; determining a focal distance for the image based on the simulated distance; determining a simulated size of the object based on the simulated distance; generating an instruction to cause an adjustor (drive unit) to alter a distance between the screen (427) and the mirror (428) to achieve the focal distance; and adjusting a size of the object in the image based on the simulated size ([0168]-[0170], [0173], [0174], [0190]-[0195]).
Claim Rejections - AIA 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murata.
Regarding claim 19, Murata further teaches moving the screen (427) away from the mirror (428) to a first position that is a first distance from the mirror (428) such that a planar image is displayed when the simulated distance is above a predetermined threshold; and moving the screen (427) toward the mirror (428) to a second position that is a second distance from the mirror (428) such that the focal distance is less than infinity when the simulated distance is below the predetermined threshold, wherein the first distance is greater than the second distance ([0168]-[0170], [0173], [0174], [0190]-[0195]).
Murata does not explicitly teach the planar image having focal distance is at infinity. At infinity, stereoscopic depth perception essentially vanishes because the eyes' convergence angle becomes parallel, reducing binocular disparity to zero; objects at infinity appear flat. It is well known in the art that at infinity all objects appear planar; hence it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of Inoue (US 20220146818 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Kobayashi does not explicitly teach the adjustor (20, 22) comprises a stop to prevent the screen (12) from contacting the mirror (14).
Inoue teaches a stop (60, 65) to prevent the screen (427) from contacting the mirror (428; Fig. 4 and 6; [00115]-[0132]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Kobayashi with Inoue; because it blocks sun light from entering the projector shortening the life of the projector.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of APA (Admitted Prior Art; Fig. 1 of Specification of the current Application).
Regarding claim 12, neither Kobayashi nor Murata teaches the system is associated with a simulator configured to simulate an aircraft, wherein the simulator includes a chin window positioned between the designated eye point and the mirror (14), and wherein the image displayed by the screen (12) is visible to the user through the chin window.
APA teaches a simulator configured to simulate an aircraft (Fig. 1), wherein the simulator includes a chin window (18) positioned between the designated eye point and the screen (22), and wherein the image displayed by the screen (22) is visible to the user through the chin window (18; Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Kobayashi with APA; because the device of Kobayashi can accommodate users of different height and size thereby increase its usefulness.
Claim 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murata in view of APA.
Regarding claim 13, Murata teaches a control system (425) for a simulator for adjusting a focal distance of an image at a designated eye point of the simulator, comprising: a processor (CPU); and a memory storing instructions for execution by the processor (CPU) that, when executed, cause the processor (CPU; [0168]) to: generate the image for display by a screen (427), wherein the screen (427) is oriented such that the image is reflected by a mirror (428), through a window of the simulator and to the designated eye point; determine a simulated distance from the designated eye point to an object in the image; determine a focal distance for the image based on the simulated distance; determine a simulated size of the object based on the simulated distance; generate an instruction to cause an adjustor (drive unit, [0170]) to alter a distance between the screen (427) and the mirror (428) to achieve the focal distance; and adjust a size of the object in the image based on the simulated size ([0168]-[0170], [0173], [0174], [0190]-[0195]).
Murata does not teach the viewing direction being downward, i.e., through a chin window.
APA teaches a simulator configured to simulate an aircraft (Fig. 1), wherein the simulator includes a chin window (18) positioned between the designated eye point and the screen (22), and wherein the image displayed by the screen (22) is visible to the user through the chin window (18; Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Murata with APA; because the device of Murata can adjust the size of the object thereby increase its usefulness.
Regarding claim 14, Murata further teaches determining the simulated distance comprises one or more of: receiving a position of the designated eye point; determining a simulated position of the object relative to the designated eye point; and determining a distance between the position of the designated eye point and the simulated position of the object ([0168]-[0170], [0173], [0174], [0190]-[0195]).
Regarding claim 15, Murata further teaches the distance between the screen (427) and the mirror (428) correlates to the focal distance, and wherein the memory further comprises an instruction which causes the processor (CPU) to: move the screen (427) to a first position that is a first distance from the mirror (428) such that a planar image is displayed when the simulated distance is above a predetermined threshold (Fig. 3; [0192]).
Murata does not explicitly teach the planar image having focal distance is at infinity. It is well known in the art that at infinity all objects appear planar; hence it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 16, Murata further teaches the memory further comprises an instruction which causes the processor (CPU) to: move the screen (427) to a second position that is a second distance from the mirror (428) such that the focal distance is less than infinity when the simulated distance is below the predetermined threshold, wherein the first distance is greater than the second distance (Fig. 3; [0192]).
Regarding claim 17, Murata further teaches “to determine an appropriate threshold in consideration of a balance between the reduction of the discomfort and the suppression of the processing load” ([0037]-[0041]).
Murata does not explicitly teach the predetermined threshold being about thirty feet.
Having the threshold being thirty feet is an issue of design choice. In other word, choosing the threshold is a matter of the designer of the system choosing the acceptable comfort level in viewing the image.
Lacking criticality to the functioning of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to choose the predetermined threshold to be about thirty feet.
Claims 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over APA in view of Kobayashi.
Regarding claim 20, APA. A flight simulator (Fig. 1) for training a student to operate an aircraft, comprising: a primary display system (4) to simulate a view out of a window of the aircraft, comprising: a projector (6); a first screen (8), wherein the projector (6) is operable to generate a first image that is displayed on the first screen (8); and a mirror array (10) to reflect the first image to a designated eye point (32) of the simulator; and a variable collimation display system (20; Fig. 1; [0005]) to simulate a second view outside the aircraft through a chin window (18) in a cabin of the simulator, the chin window (18) positioned near a floor of the cabin (Fig. 1) having a second screen (22) to display a second image.
The APA does not explicitly teach the variable collimation display comprising: a mirror to reflect the second image from the second screen through the chin window and to the designated eye point; and an adjustor configured to move the second screen relative to the mirror, wherein when the second screen is a first distance from the mirror the second image is at infinity focus, and wherein when the second screen is a second distance from the mirror the second image has a fixed focal distance that is less than infinity, the second distance being less than the first distance.
Kobayashi teaches the variable collimation display comprising: a mirror (14) to reflect the second image from the second screen (12) through a window and to the designated eye point; and an adjustor (20, 22) configured to move the second screen (12) relative to the mirror (14), wherein when the second screen (12) is a first distance from the mirror (14) the second image is at infinity focus, and wherein when the second screen (12) is a second distance from the mirror (14) the second image has a fixed focal distance that is less than infinity, the second distance being less than the first distance ([0024], [0025]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine the APA with Kobayashi; because it allows the display to present depth in the images to improve user experience.
Regarding claim 21, the combination of APA and Kobayashi consequently results in the mirror (14 of Kobayashi) is a fixed distance from the designated eye point (Fig. 4 of Kobayashi).
Conclusion
The prior art references cited in PTO-892 are made of record and considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Patent documents, US 11378799 B1, US 20190329716 A1, US 20190086662 A1, US 20190271840 A1, US 20190012852 A1, US 20180342046 A1, US 20170131550 A1, US 20180059779 A1, US 20170278305 A1, US 20170276935 A1, US 20170274771 A1, US 20180017792 A1, US 20160209663 A1, and US 20130188259 A1, disclose HUD having the display/screen being moved to change to apparent distance. Patent documents, US 20210286176 A1, US 8403502 B2, and US 20100123880 A1, disclose simulators using display system similar to the claimed invention. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAO-LUAN Q LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5362. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday; 9:00AM-5:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Minh-Toan Ton can be reached on (571) 272 230303. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
Or faxed to:
(571) 273-8300, (for formal communications intended for entry)
Or:
(571) 273-7490, (for informal or draft communications, please label “PROPOSED” or “DRAFT”)
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to:
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
/BAO-LUAN Q LE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882