DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to applicant’s remarks filed on May 6, 2026. Claims 1-4, 6-10, and 13-15 are under consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 6, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Arg. 1: The prisms 108/114 of Amitai’s display system is attached the surface of the substrate coupling and light routing arrangement, thus the cited prism is not a distinct compensatory element interposed between the projector-side image delivery optics and the LOE-side coupling arrangement. (Remarks, page 8, first paragraph).
Response 1: The examiner respectfully disagrees. The prism 108/114 in Amitai’s display system is a distinct compensatory element. In an explanatory embodiment of Figs. 6A-6C, Amitai discloses it is preferred to cement the prism to the lower surface of the substrate using an optical adhesive having a refractive index lower than the refractive index of the substrate to efficiently coupling the light from the prism into the substrate such that the brightness of the light waves coupled out of the substrate is similar to the brightness of the input light (page 12, lines 20-23). Thus, Amitai recognizes that the prisms may be separable from the substrate such that an adhesive is required to mount the prism to the substrate. The open-ended transitional phrase comprising does not preclude the examiner from considering other structure(s), such as interface plane, from being part of the display system design that the claim does not recite. Therefore, prism 108/114 meets the meets the claim limitation of being “interposed in a light path between said image projector and said LOE so as to introduce a compensatory chromatic aberration into the collimated projected image transmitted through said optical element”.
Arg. 2: Applicant argues Amitai does not teach the compensatory optical element structure comprises a first and second wedge components as recited in claim 1. Applicant continues arguing Hudman does not teach the compensatory optical element of claim 1 because Hudman’s wedge optics are disclosed as “deflective, distortion-altering optics whose geometry and placement are tied to the off-axis scanned-beam arrangement”. The modification of Amitai with Hudman’s wedge optics would “remove or fundamentally alter the deflective wedge arrangement by which Hudman achieves its disclosed distortion correction.”. For this reason, one having ordinary skill in the art would not know how to reconfigure Hudman’s wedge optics to be chromatic compensatory element of the claimed invention (page 8 second paragraph to page 9 second paragraph).
Response 2: The modification of Amitai’s prism with the wedge optics of Hudman would not “fundamentally alter the deflective wedge arrangement by which Hudman achieves its disclosed distortion correction.” The embodiment in Fig. 5, Hudman shows the “scanning platform 114 is arranged within the module of scanned beam display 100, wherein the output beam 124 exiting scanning platform 114 may pass through wedge optic 210 to result in alteration of the path or paths of exit beams 216 exiting scanned beam display 100 which results in alteration of distortion of the resulting projected image. (Para [0020])” The scanning platform 114 can be treated as the image or display source. This is equivalent to the display source 4 in Amitai’s Fig. 1 or the dashed lines 63 originating from display source (Amitai: Figs. 6A-6C). The deflective feature of Hudman’s invention is immaterial to the aberration correction of the wedge optics since Fig. 5 shows the image source is a resultant beam incidents on the surface of the wedge optics 210 inasmuch as the resultant beam(s) 63 incident on the prism 108 of Amitai.
Respectfully, the examiner does not suggest modifying the display system of Amitai with the MEMS scanning display system of Hudman. In the Non-final Rejection (mailed 2/10/2026) on page 5, the examiner proposed the modification of the wedge optics (210 including the teachings in Para [0018]) of Hudman in place of the prism 108 of Amitai. Given the clear explanation of selecting the material, refractive indices, and Abbe numbers of the first wedge optic 210 and second wedge optic 218 for chromatic aberration correction, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize and be capable of modifying the prism 108 of Amitai with the wedge optics of Hudman to compensate the chromatic aberration of the input light. For these reasons, the examiner considers the modification of Amitai in view of Hudman is compatible and functional. Since no arguments are presented for the rejections of claims 2-4, 6-10 and 13, the examiner maintains the rejections of claims 1-4, 6-10, and 13. See rejection for added claims 14-15 below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "said optical element" in lines 26-27 and the limitation “the optical element” in line 30. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is a “light-guide optical element” in line 4 and a “compensatory optical element” in line 9. Thus, it is unclear which one of the two structures the recitations in lines 26-27 and line 30 are referring to.
Claim 14 in line 29, applicant reinvoked “said compensatory optical element” and in line 31 applicant reinvoked “said LOE” (light-guide optical element). The reinvoked limitations—said compensatory optical element—and—said LOE—creates confusion of whether “said optical element” in lines 26-27 and “the optical element” in line 30 is another structure – different from the compensatory optical element and the LOE.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "said optical element" in lines 29-30 and the limitation “the optical element” in line 33. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is a “light-guide optical element” in line 5 and a “compensatory optical element” in line 14. Thus, it is unclear which one of the two structures the recitations in lines 29-30 and line 33 are referring to.
Claim 15 in line 32, applicant reinvoked “said compensatory optical element”. The reinvoked limitation—said compensatory optical element—creates confusion of whether “said optical element” in lines 29-30 and “the optical element” in line 33 is another structure – different from the compensatory optical element and the LOE.
In view of the Remarks page 9-11, applicant explains the bonded surfaces are referencing the compensatory optical element, the examiner shall consider “said optical element” and “the optical element” recited by claims 14-15 to reference the “compensatory optical element”.
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 1-4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amitai (WO 2020/157747 A1, herein “Amitai”) in view of Hudman et al. (US 2010/0060863 A1, herein “Hudman”).
Regarding claim 1, Amitai discloses a display system (head mounted display system) comprising:
an image projector generating a collimated projected image (source 4, lens 6 in Fig. 1) having an optical axis (Fig. 1);
a light-guide optical element (64 n Fig. 8A and similar in all the figures) having a pair of mutually-parallel major external surfaces, a coupling-in configuration (input aperture 86) for receiving the collimated projected image so as to propagate within said LOE by internal reflection at said major external surfaces (see ray traces), and a coupling-out configuration (output aperture 89) for coupling the collimated projected image out from said LOE towards a viewer (24) ; and
a compensatory optical element (intermediate prism 108 or 114) interposed in a light path between said image projector and said LOE so as to introduce a compensatory chromatic aberration into the collimated projected image transmitted through said optical element (page 10, line 22 to page 11, line 5), said optical element comprising:
a first wedge component (wedge component at reflecting surface 65 in Fig. 8A) formed from a first transparent material;
a second wedge component (component that is formed at the interface 111 and reflective surface 65) formed from a second transparent material
However, Amitai does not explicitly teach:
the first wedge component having a first refractive index, a first Abbe number, said first wedge component having a first outer surface deployed perpendicular to the optical axis and a first bonding surface; and
a second wedge component having a second refractive index and having a second Abbe number differing from said first Abbe number, said second wedge component having a second outer surface inclined at said wedge angle to a second bonding surface,
wherein said first bonding surface is bonded to said second bonding surface with said first and second wedge components oriented such that the first outer surface is parallel to said second outer surface and perpendicular to the optical axis thereby introducing a compensatory linear chromatic aberration into a collimated image passing through the optical element while presenting parallel outer surfaces.
Hudman teaches distortion altering optics for display systems. Hudman teaches a compensatory optical element comprises of wedge optics (210, 218). The first wedge component (210) formed from a first transparent material having a first refractive index and a first Abbe number, said first wedge component having a first outer surface inclined (at “212”) at a wedge angle to a first bonding surface (at “214”, Para [0018]). The second wedge component (218) formed from a second transparent material having a second refractive index differing from said first refractive index and a second Abbe number differing from said first Abbe number, said second wedge component having a second outer surface inclined (angle at reference label “218”) at said wedge angle to a second bonding surface (Para [0018]). Hudman further teaches, referencing Fig. 2 and 3, the wedge optic may comprise a first pane of glass or other optical material to embody the first surface (212) and a second pane of glass or other optical material to embody second surface (214, Para [0016]). Fig. 7 shows an embodiment wherein the first and second pane of glass are joined together such that the first and second outer surface are parallel and normal to the to the optical axis of interest in Fig. 7. Thus, the examiner considers Hudman implies the two glass panes are bonded to form the wedge optic body shown in Fig. 7.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize both Amitai and Hudman are in the same field of endeavor and solving the same chromatic aberration distortion in display systems. Amitai employs bonding prisms (108 and 80) with bonding adhesives along the waveguide to compensate aberration distortions (page 10, line 22- page 11, line5, and page 18 to page 19). Hudman teaches the wedge optic can be used to eliminate distortion in an image generated by a scanning platform that may result inherently in scanned beam display or imaging systems as a result of trajectory of the scanned beam caused by the off axis input beam. Alternatively, the wedge optic 210 may be utilized to provide some alteration of distortion of the image generated or obtained by the scanning platform (Para [0016]). In other words, Hudman’s wedge optic can be utilized to compensate for distortion at the input end or at the output end of the display system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the HUD display system of Amitai with the wedge optic in Hudman’s invention to receive input light from the intermediate prism (108) and before the input light enters the substrate (64) in the embodiment as shown in Fig. 9A. One motivation for correcting chromatic aberration at the input end of the display system prevents color fringing and blur leading to higher resolution and contrast. Since chromatic aberration is reduced or eliminated at the input end, the computational load for digital signal processing is reduced, thus saving power; in VR or AR system, this means longer battery life.
Claims 2-3. Amitai in view of Hudman (herein “Amitai / Hudman”) teach the wedge angle is about 8.5 degrees, which is less than 10 degrees (Hudman: Para [0019]).
Claim 4. Amitai / Hudman teach the first wedge component and second wedge component have edges defining a rectangular shape (the bonding surfaces have vertices and edges defining a rectangular shape), and a direction of variation of a thickness of the first and second wedge component is at an oblique angle to said edges (see vertices at reference numeral “212” and “218” in Hudman Fig. 2).
Claim 13. Amitai / Hudman teach the image projector projects the collimated image with primary image axes (ray 124, 216), and wherein a direction of variation of a thickness of said first and second wedge components is at an oblique angle (rays above and below primary ray 124, 216) to said primary image axes (Hudman: Fig. 2).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amitai / Hudman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Amitai (US 2019/0155035 A1, herein “Pg-pub ‘035”).
Amitai / Hudman teach the invention of claim 1, but Amitai / Hudman do not teach the first outer surface of the optical element is bonded to a surface of the image projector and the second outer surface of the optical element is bonded to a surface of the coupling-in configuration.
Pg-pub ‘035 teaches collimating module (40 in Fig. 3) can be attached to the substrate (20) resulting in minimizing the chromatic aberrations by coupling the central wave (14) normal to the slanted surface (50) (Para [0030], [0034, [0036]]). Fig. 10 shows the image projector (light source 94) is bonded to the modified optical component (90) that comprises of prisms for compensating aberration. The second outer surface of the modified optical component (90) is bonded to a surface of the coupling in configuration (Para [0030] and [0043], claim 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the placement of the optical element bonded to the image projector and the surface of the coupling-in configuration, as taught by Pg-pub ‘035, would be modifiable to the display system of Amitai / Hudman. The embodiment of Fig. 6 and 9 of Amitai would be suitable to bond the optical element to the coupling-in configuration. One motivation for correcting chromatic aberration at the input end of the display system prevents color fringing and blur leading to higher resolution and contrast. Since chromatic aberration is reduced or eliminated at the input end, the computational load for digital signal processing is reduced, thus saving power; in VR or AR system, this means longer battery life.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amitai / Hudman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Glasenapp (DE-102010039746-A1, herein “Glasenapp”)
Hudman in view of Mills teach the invention of claim 5, and further teach the LOE is mounted on a support structure (eyeglasses) configured for supporting the LOE on the head of the viewer (Mills, Figs. 1, 6a, 6b, and 6c), the support structure supporting the LOE with a face-curve angle between the normal to the major surfaces of the chief ray of the projected image coupled out towards the viewer. Hudman in view of Mills further anticipated the pantoscopic tilt, the inclination of the chief ray to the normal to the major surfaces (Para [0067], “[t]he collimator element 608 of Fig. 5 may be located relative to the arc or shape of the head 706. In Fig. 6A the support is horizontal and in Fig. 6B the frame is tilted for aesthetic reasons and to accommodate a different head shape and is viewed from above the top of the head.” Regardless, of the pantoscopic angle, the chief ray is projected perpendicular from the LOE into the user’s eye as shown in Figs. 6C and 6D).
However, Hudman in view of Mills do not explicitly teach the optical element at least partially compensate for a chromatic aberration introduced by said face-curve angle and by pantoscopic angle.
According to the Specification, “In order to correct the chromatic aberration generated by more than one waveguide inclination, for example a pantoscopic waveguide tilt in addition to a face curve waveguide tilt, the compensation plate should be oriented diagonally relative to the optical axis” (p. 15, lines 14-17).
Glasenapp teaches a microscope provided with aberration correction plates (9, 10), wherein, the two plates are formed complementary to the other plate surface. The plate surfaces are formed flat, and stay diagonal to the optical axis (Abstract).
Glasenapp aberration correction plate is provided in a microscope wherein Hudman and Mills teach the aberration correction optical element are provided in an image display system, but Glasernapp’s correction plate solves the same optical aberration that exists in both microscope and display system applications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize the principle in the aberration correction plate of Glasenapp’s invention would be interchangeable with the aberration compensating optical element of Hudman in view of Mills to at least partially compensate for the linear chromatic output aberration introduced by said face-curve angle. One would be motivated to employ the complementary wedges having varying thickness because these bulk optical elements are readily available for integration following design specifications.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amitai in view of Hudman, and further in view of Amitai et al. (US 2019/0155035 A1, herein “pgpub 035”).
Regarding claim 14, Amitai discloses a display system (head mounted display system) comprising:
an image projector generating a collimated projected image (source 4, lens 6 in Fig. 1) having an optical axis (Fig. 1);
a light-guide optical element (64 n Fig. 8A and similar in all the figures) having a pair of mutually-parallel major external surfaces, a coupling-in configuration (input aperture 86) for receiving the collimated projected image so as to propagate within said LOE by internal reflection at said major external surfaces (see ray traces), and a coupling-out configuration (output aperture 89) for coupling the collimated projected image out from said LOE towards a viewer (24) ; and
a compensatory optical element (intermediate prism 108 or 114) interposed in a light path between said image projector and said LOE so as to introduce a compensatory chromatic aberration into the collimated projected image transmitted through said optical element (page 10, line 22 to page 11, line 5), said optical element comprising:
a first wedge component (wedge component at reflecting surface 65 in Fig. 8A) formed from a first transparent material;
a second wedge component (component that is formed at the interface 111 and reflective surface 65) formed from a second transparent material
However, Amitai does not explicitly teach:
the first wedge component having a first refractive index, a first Abbe number, said first wedge component having a first outer surface deployed perpendicular to the optical axis and a first bonding surface; and
a second wedge component having a second refractive index and having a second Abbe number differing from said first Abbe number, said second wedge component having a second outer surface inclined at said wedge angle to a second bonding surface,
wherein said first bonding surface is bonded to said second bonding surface with said first and second wedge components oriented such that the first outer surface is parallel to said second outer surface and perpendicular to the optical axis thereby introducing a compensatory linear chromatic aberration into a collimated image passing through the optical element while presenting parallel outer surfaces.
Hudman teaches a compensatory optical element comprises of wedge optics (210, 218). The first wedge component (210) formed from a first transparent material having a first refractive index and a first Abbe number, said first wedge component having a first outer surface inclined (at “212”) at a wedge angle to a first bonding surface (at “214”, Para [0018]). The second wedge component (218) formed from a second transparent material having a second refractive index differing from said first refractive index and a second Abbe number differing from said first Abbe number, said second wedge component having a second outer surface inclined (angle at reference label “218”) at said wedge angle to a second bonding surface (Para [0018]). Hudman further teaches, referencing Fig. 2 and 3, the wedge optic may comprise a first pane of glass or other optical material to embody the first surface (212) and a second pane of glass or other optical material to embody second surface (214, Para [0016]). Fig. 7 shows an embodiment wherein the first and second pane of glass are joined together such that the first and second outer surface are parallel and normal to the to the optical axis of interest in Fig. 7. Thus, the examiner considers Hudman implies the two glass panes are bonded to form the wedge optic body shown in Fig. 7.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize both Amitai and Hudman are in the same field of endeavor and solving the same chromatic aberration distortion in display systems. Amitai employs bonding prisms (108 and 80) with bonding adhesives along the waveguide to compensate aberration distortions (page 10, line 22- page 11, line5, and page 18 to page 19). Hudman teaches the wedge optic can be used to eliminate distortion in an image generated by a scanning platform that may result inherently in scanned beam display or imaging systems as a result of trajectory of the scanned beam caused by the off axis input beam. Alternatively, the wedge optic (210, 218) may be utilized to provide some alteration of distortion of the image generated or obtained by the scanning platform (Para [0016]). In other words, Hudman’s wedge optic can be utilized to compensate for distortion at the input end or at the output end of the display system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify intermediate prism 108 of Amitai with the wedge optics (210, 218) of Hudman’s invention to receive Amitai’s input light (light source 4 and lens 6 Fig. 1) in and before the input light enters the substrate (64) in the embodiment as shown in Fig. 9A. One motivation for correcting chromatic aberration at the input end of the display system prevents color fringing and blur leading to higher resolution and contrast. Since chromatic aberration is reduced or eliminated at the input end, the computational load for digital signal processing is reduced, thus saving power; in VR or AR system, this means longer battery life.
However, Amitai in view of Hudman (herein “Amitai / Hudman”) do not teach the first outer surface of said compensatory optical element is bonded to an exit surface of said image projector and second outer surface of said compensatory optical element is bonded to an entrance surface of said coupling-in configuration, said entrance surface being parallel to said exit surface.
Pgpub 035 teaches in Fig. 9 a compensatory optical element (polarization splitter or combiner 61, compensates for ghost images due to mismatched s-polarized light and p-polarized light), has a first outer surface of said compensatory optical element is bonded to an exit surface of an image projector (display light source 64) and second outer surface of said compensatory optical element (61) is bonded (claim 2 and claim 4) to an entrance surface of said coupling-in configuration (prism 54), said entrance surface being parallel to said exit surface.
PNG
media_image1.png
514
734
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Pgpub 035 do not explicitly teach the image projector (64) is bonded to a compensatory optical element (61). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the light source (64) separable from the polarization splitter/combiner (61) (as suggested in Fig. 10 wherein the light source (94) is rearranged to the inject light into the second polarization splitter/combiner), since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize the assembly of the image projector, light guide optical element, compensatory optical element as taught by pgpub 035 would be modifiable to the invention of Amitai / Hudman. One would modify display system of Amitai / Hudman by bonding the assembly of pgpub 035 to the LOE surface of Amitai / Hudman such that the central wave or optical beam is coupled normal to slanted surface receiving surface of the LOE. The compensatory optical element 66 of pgpub 035 has the same parallel first outer surface and the second outer surface as the compensatory optical element of Amitai / Hudman (wedge optics 210/218). The modification of Amitai / Hudman with the assembly of pug pub 035 would yield “the first outer surface of said compensatory optical element is bonded to an exit surface of said image projector and said second outer surface of said compensatory optical element is bonded to an entrance surface of said coupling-in configuration, said entrance surface being parallel to said exit surface, said compensatory optical element introducing a net linear chromatic aberration into a collimated image passing through the compensatory optical element from said image projector to said LOE for at least partial compensation of chromatic aberration of the display system.” Pgpub 035 teach the motivation for by coupling the image source normal to the slanted edge 50 of the LOE, the optical display system can be further reduced in size and made more compact
(Pgpub 035: Paras [0033]-[0036]).
Regarding claim 15, Amitai discloses a display system (head mounted display system) comprising:
an image projector generating a collimated projected image (source 4, lens 6 in Fig. 1) having an optical axis projected through an exit surface (Fig. 1);
a light-guide assembly comprising:
a light-guide optical element (64 in Fig. 8A and similar in all the figures) having a pair of mutually-parallel major external surfaces,
a coupling-in configuration (input aperture 86) associated with the LOE and configured to direct the collimated projected image so as to propagate within said LOE by internal reflection at said major surfaces (see ray traces), and
a coupling-out configuration (output aperture 89) associated with said LOE for coupling the collimated project out from said LOE towards a viewer (24),
said light-guide assembly having an entrance surface (reflecting surface 65 in Figs. 8A-9B) through which the collimated projected image is injected for coupling in by said coupling-in configuration; and
a compensatory optical element (intermediate prism 108 or 114) interposed in a light path between said image projector (source 4, lines 6 in Fig. 1) and said light-guide assembly (LOE in Figs. 8A-9B) so as to a compensatory optical element (intermediate prism 108 or 114) so as to introduce a compensatory chromatic aberration into the collimated projected image transmitted through said optical element (page 10, line 22 to page 11, line 5), said optical element comprising:
a first wedge component (wedge component at reflecting surface 65 in Fig. 8A) formed from a first transparent material;
a second wedge component (component that is formed at the interface 111 and reflective surface 65) formed from a second transparent material
However, Amitai does not explicitly teach:
the first wedge component having a first refractive index, a first Abbe number, said first wedge component having a first outer surface deployed perpendicular to the optical axis and a first bonding surface; and
a second wedge component having a second refractive index and having a second Abbe number differing from said first Abbe number, said second wedge component having a second outer surface inclined at said wedge angle to a second bonding surface,
wherein said first bonding surface is bonded to said second bonding surface with said first and second wedge components oriented such that the first outer surface is parallel to said second outer surface and perpendicular to the optical axis thereby introducing a compensatory linear chromatic aberration into a collimated image passing through the optical element while presenting parallel outer surfaces.
Hudman teaches a compensatory optical element comprises of wedge optics (210, 218). The first wedge component (210) formed from a first transparent material having a first refractive index and a first Abbe number, said first wedge component having a first outer surface inclined (at “212”) at a wedge angle to a first bonding surface (at “214”, Para [0018]). The second wedge component (218) formed from a second transparent material having a second refractive index differing from said first refractive index and a second Abbe number differing from said first Abbe number, said second wedge component having a second outer surface inclined (angle at reference label “218”) at said wedge angle to a second bonding surface (Para [0018]). Hudman further teaches, referencing Fig. 2 and 3, the wedge optic may comprise a first pane of glass or other optical material to embody the first surface (212) and a second pane of glass or other optical material to embody second surface (214, Para [0016]). Fig. 7 shows an embodiment wherein the first and second pane of glass are joined together such that the first and second outer surface are parallel and normal to the to the optical axis of interest in Fig. 7. Thus, the examiner considers Hudman implies the two glass panes are bonded to form the wedge optic body shown in Fig. 7.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize both Amitai and Hudman are in the same field of endeavor and solving the same chromatic aberration distortion in display systems. Amitai employs bonding prisms (108 and 80) with bonding adhesives along the waveguide to compensate aberration distortions (page 10, line 22- page 11, line5, and page 18 to page 19). Hudman teaches the wedge optic can be used to eliminate distortion in an image generated by a scanning platform that may result inherently in scanned beam display or imaging systems as a result of trajectory of the scanned beam caused by the off axis input beam. Alternatively, the wedge optic (210, 218) may be utilized to provide some alteration of distortion of the image generated or obtained by the scanning platform (Para [0016]). In other words, Hudman’s wedge optic can be utilized to compensate for distortion at the input end or at the output end of the display system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify intermediate prism 108 of Amitai with the wedge optics (210, 218) of Hudman’s invention to receive Amitai’s input light (light source 4 and lens 6 Fig. 1) in and before the input light enters the substrate (64) in the embodiment as shown in Fig. 9A. One motivation for correcting chromatic aberration at the input end of the display system prevents color fringing and blur leading to higher resolution and contrast. Since chromatic aberration is reduced or eliminated at the input end, the computational load for digital signal processing is reduced, thus saving power; in VR or AR system, this means longer battery life.
However, Amitai in view of Hudman (herein “Amitai / Hudman”) do not teach the first outer surface of said compensatory optical element is bonded to an exit surface of said image projector and second outer surface of said compensatory optical element is bonded to an entrance surface of said light-guide assembly, said entrance surface being parallel to said exit surface.
Pgpub 035 teaches in Fig. 9 a compensatory optical element (polarization splitter or combiner 61, compensates for ghost images due to mismatched s-polarized light and p-polarized light), has a first outer surface of said compensatory optical element is bonded to an exit surface of an image projector (display light source 64) and second outer surface of said compensatory optical element (61) is bonded (claim 2 and claim 4) to an entrance surface of said coupling-in configuration (prism 54), said entrance surface being parallel to said exit surface.
PNG
media_image1.png
514
734
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Pgpub 035 do not explicitly teach the image projector (64) is bonded to a compensatory optical element (61). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the light source (64) separable from the polarization splitter/combiner (61) (as suggested in Fig. 10 wherein the light source (94) is rearranged to the inject light into the second polarization splitter/combiner), since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize the assembly of the image projector, light guide optical element, compensatory optical element as taught by pgpub 035 would be modifiable to the invention of Amitai / Hudman. One would modify display system of Amitai / Hudman by bonding the assembly of pgpub 035 to the LOE surface of Amitai / Hudman such that the central wave or optical beam is coupled normal to slanted surface receiving surface of the LOE. The compensatory optical element 66 of pgpub 035 has the same parallel first outer surface and the second outer surface as the compensatory optical element of Amitai / Hudman (wedge optics 210/218). The modification of Amitai / Hudman with the assembly of pug pub 035 would yield “the first outer surface of said compensatory optical element is bonded to an exit surface of said image projector and said second outer surface of said compensatory optical element is bonded to an entrance surface of said light-guide assembly, said entrance surface being parallel to said exit surface, said compensatory optical element introducing a net linear chromatic aberration into a collimated image passing through the compensatory optical element from said image projector to said light-guide assembly for at least partial compensation of chromatic aberration of the display system.” Pgpub 035 teach the motivation for by coupling the image source normal to the slanted edge 50 of the LOE, the optical display system can be further reduced in size and made more compact (Pgpub 035: Paras [0033]-[0036]).
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 Erin D Chiem whose telephone number is (571)272-3102. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am - 6 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas A. Hollweg can be reached at (571) 270-1739. 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.
/ERIN D CHIEM/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights