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
Acknowledgement is made of receipt of Information Disclosure Statement (PTO-1449) filed 12/02/2025. An initialed copy is attached to this Office Action.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-2, 8, 15, 17-18 and 20 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “input area”, “output area”, “input region”, and “output region” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: "adjustment mechanism" In claim 1,
9-11, 20 and 24-25, "collimating elements" in claims 20-23 and 25, and tilting mechanism in claims 10 and 24.
The adjustment mechanism is described as a slide rail in paragraph [0032] of the application and
is being interpreted as a slide rail.
The collimating elements are described as comprising a series of lenses in paragraph [0046] of
the application and are being interpreted as a lens group.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du (US 20220283441 A1) in view of Schultz et al. (US 20200278554 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Du discloses in at least figure 2, an optics device (display module paragraph [0024]) comprising:
a single waveguide (waveguide 21 fig. 2) supportable on (a first diffractive waveguide 21 is arranged on the bracket 20 paragraph [0024]) a frame (bracket 20 fig. 2) to be positionable (the first diffractive waveguide 21 may slide on the bracket 20 paragraph [0024]) relative to an eve of a user (It should be noted that the first diffractive waveguide 21 is configured to correspond to eye of a user paragraph [0024]), the single waveguide (waveguide 21 fig. 2) having an input region (the first entrance pupil grating 211 is arranged in the first region 2001 paragraph [0027], shown below as input region including the input area in the current application fig. 4) and an output region (the first exit pupil grating 212 is arranged in a region the third region 2003 paragraph [0027], shown below as output region including output area in the current application fig. 4), the input region (the first entrance pupil grating 211 is arranged in the first region 2001 paragraph [0027], shown below as input region including the input area in the current application fig. 4) to receive light (an optical image may be projected to the first entrance pupil grating 211 using an optical machine paragraph [0028]) and the output region (the first exit pupil grating 212 is arranged in a region the third region 2003 paragraph [0027], shown below as output region including output area in the current application fig. 4) to provide an exit pupil for the optics device directable to the eye of the user (the first exit pupil grating 212 may be configured to output the optical image for human eye perception paragraph [0027]); and
an optical element (optical machine 23 fig. 2) configured to deliver light (an optical image may be projected to the first entrance pupil grating 211 using an optical machine paragraph [0028]) to the input region (the first entrance pupil grating 211 is arranged in the first region 2001 paragraph [0027], shown below as input region including the input area in the current application fig. 4) of the single waveguide (waveguide 21 fig. 2) over an input area (first entrance pupil grating 211 fig. 2, shown below as input area in the current application fig. 4) of the single waveguide (waveguide 21 fig. 2) such that light is to leave the output region (the first exit pupil grating 212 is arranged in a region the third region 2003 paragraph [0027], shown below as output region including output area in the current application fig. 4) of the single waveguide (waveguide 21 fig. 2) over an output area (first exit pupil grating 212 fig. 2. shown below as output area in the current application fig. 4) of the single waveguide (waveguide 21 fig. 2) that is larger than (the third region 2003 is larger than the first region 2001 fig. 2) the input area (first entrance pupil grating 211 fig. 2, shown below as input area in the current application fig. 4) of the single waveguide (waveguide 21 fig. 2), the output area (first exit pupil grating 212 fig. 2) and the input area (first entrance pupil grating 211 fig. 2, shown below as input area in the current application fig. 4) of the single waveguide (waveguide 21 fig. 2) parallel to each other (the first exit pupil grating 212 and first entrance pupil grating 211 are parallel fig. 2) and non-overlapping with each other (the first exit pupil grating 212 and first entrance pupil grating 211 are non-overlapping fig. 2),
the input region (the first entrance pupil grating 211 is arranged in the first region 2001 paragraph [0027], shown below as input region including the input area in the current application fig. 4) of the single waveguide (waveguide 21 fig. 2) being oversized relative to (the first region 2001 is oversized compared to the first entrance pupil 211 fig. 2) the input area (first entrance pupil grating 211 fig. 2, shown below as input area in the current application fig. 4) of the single waveguide (waveguide 21 fig. 2) and the output region (the first exit pupil grating 212 is arranged in a region the third region 2003 paragraph [0027], shown below as output region including output area in the current application fig. 4) of the single waveguide (waveguide 21 fig. 2) is oversized relative to (the third region 2003 is oversized relative to the first exit pupil grating 212 fig. 2) the output area (first exit pupil grating 212 fig. 2, shown below as out area in the current application fig. 4) of the single waveguide (waveguide 21 fig. 2) to accommodate for different interpupillary distances (IPD) of different users (the first diffractive waveguide 21 may slide on the bracket 20 and is configured to correspond to the eyes of the user in a one to one correspondence paragraph [0024]).
PNG
media_image1.png
554
897
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
737
707
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Du does not disclose, the optical element being moveably attached to an adjustment mechanism that is supportable on the frame to enable the optical element to be moved relative to the single waveguide so as to allow the exit pupil of the single waveguide to be moved relative to the frame, so as to be in line with the eye of the user.
However Shultz discloses in at least figures 4A-4B, the optical element (projector 40 fig. 4A) being moveably attached (the projector 40 can move from a position in fig. 4A to a position in fig. 4B resulting in an angular shift in the angle of incidence of the beams emitted from the projector paragraph [0046]) to an adjustment mechanism (the angular position of the projector 40 is changed from fig. 4A to fig. 4B) that is supportable on the frame (a projector 40, which can be fitted within a frame or mount that holds imaging light guide 10 paragraph [0045]) to enable the optical element (projector 40 fig. 4A) to be moved relative to (the angular position of the projector 40 is changed from fig. 4A to fig. 4B while the position of the waveguide 22 is fixed resulting in an angular shift in the angle of incidence of the beams emitted from the projector paragraph [0046]) the single waveguide (waveguide 22 fig. 4A) so as to allow the exit pupil (virtual image VI fig. 4A) of the single waveguide (waveguide 22 fig. 4A) to be moved relative to (the position of the virtual image VI changes with respect to the frame holding the projector 40 from fig. 4a to fig. 4B) the frame (a projector 40, which can be fitted within a frame or mount that holds imaging light guide 10 paragraph [0045]), so as to be in line with the eye of the user (a virtual image that is seen by the eye of the viewer paragraph [0045]).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use a movable optical element as taught by Schultz in the display module of Du. With an angular shift in the angle of incidence upon the waveguide 22, imaging light guide 10 mirrors the angular change and forms virtual image VI at a shifted position (paragraph [0046]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Du and Schultz discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and Du further discloses, wherein the optical element (display module paragraph [0024]) comprises two optical elements (first optical machine 23 and second optical machine 24 fig. 2), with one optical element for each eye of the user (the first optical machine 23 is for a first eye and second optical machine 24 is for a second eye fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Du and Schultz discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Du does not explicitly disclose, wherein the optical element is adapted to be angularly displaceable to create a wider field of view for display.
However Schultz further discloses, wherein the optical element (projector 40 fig. 4A) is adapted to be angularly displaceable (the projector 40 can move from a position in fig. 4A to a position in fig. 4B resulting in an angular shift in the angle of incidence of the beams emitted from the projector paragraph [0046]) to create a wider field of view for display (the field of view of the virtual image VI extends from the position at fig. 4B to its position at fig. 4C).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use a movable optical element as taught by Schultz in the display module of Du. With an angular shift in the angle of incidence upon the waveguide 22, imaging light guide 10 mirrors the angular change and forms virtual image VI at a shifted position (paragraph [0046]).
Claim 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du (US 20220283441 A1) in view of Schultz et al. (US 20200278554 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Alexander (GB 2559605 A).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Du and Schultz discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Du does not explicitly discloses, further comprising a control system providing optical compensation to the optical element caused by the movement thereof.
However Alexander discloses in at least figure 1, further comprising a control system (control
means 114 fig 1) providing optical compensation (the system 120 uses control means 114 to
compensate for the optical distortion due to the movement of movable optical element 108 by sending
a transformation signal to be applied to the image data pg. 14 para. 2) to the optical element (movable
optical element 108 fig. 1) caused by the movement thereof (the movement of movable optical element
108 adjusts the position of the eye box 102 pg. 11 para. 2 and the movement of the eye box causes
distortion because a different region of the windshield is used which has a different angle pg. 11 para.
3).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use a control system as taught by Alexander to compensate for the movement of
the display module of Du. The control means adjusts the positions the eye box to include the users
eyes (pg. 11 para. 4).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du (US 20220283441 A1) in view of Schultz et al. (US 20200278554 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Sugihara et al. (US 20130182334 Al).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Du and Schultz discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Du does not explicitly disclose, wherein the optical element is a collimating element.
However Sugihara discloses in at least figure 11, wherein the optical element (Led 1119a fig. 11) is a collimating element (ball lens 1119b is for collimating illumination light from the LED 1119a paragraph [0055]).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use a collimating element as taught by Sugihara with the display module of Du. The collimating element makes the light rays parallel before reaching the display.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Du, Schultz and Sugihara discloses all the limitations of claim 4.
Du does not explicitly disclose, wherein the collimating element includes a display.
However Sugihara further discloses, wherein the collimating element (ball lens 1119b fig. 11)
includes a display (the light source 1119a uses ball lens 119b to illuminate the display 1114 paragraph
[0055]).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use a collimating element and display as taught by Sugihara with the display module of Du. The collimating element makes the light rays parallel before reaching the display.
Claims 6, 9 and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du (US 20220283441 A1) in view of Schultz et al. (US 20200278554 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Lee et al. (US 20210063754 Al).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Du and Schultz discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Du does not explicitly disclose, wherein the optical element is adapted to be moved in a horizontal direction to adapt to an interpupillary distance of the user.
However the Lee discloses in at least the fourth embodiment, wherein the optical element (light emitting element 513 fig. 22) is adapted to be moved (the light emitting element 513 moves along the guide 513a through optical elements 531a figs. 22a-c) in a horizontal direction (the light emitting element 513 in a horizontal direction fig. 22a-c) to adapt to an interpupillary distance of the user (the light emitting unit 513 may move along the guide 513a for a user with narrow average or wide IPD paragraphs [0331-0334]).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use the movable light emitting element with the display as taught by Lee with the display module of Du. The light emitting unit may move along the guide to stop in different IPD positions (paragraph [0331]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Du and Schultz discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Du does not explicitly disclose, wherein the adjustment mechanism comprises a slider on which the optical element is moveably attached.
However Lee discloses in at least the fourth embodiment, wherein the adjustment mechanism (guide 513a fig. 22) comprises a slider (the light emitting element 513 slides along guide 513a fig. 22) on which the optical element (light emitting element 513 fig. 22) is moveably attached (the light emitting element 513 moves along the guide 513a through optical elements 531a-c figs. 22a).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use the adjustment mechanism with the display as taught by Lee in the display module of Du. The slider allows the light emitting unit to move along the guide to stop in different IPD positions (paragraph [0331]).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Du and Schultz discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Du does not explicitly disclose, wherein the optical element includes at least one of an active optical element and an inactive optical element.
However Lee discloses in at least the fourth embodiment, wherein the optical element (light emitting element 513 fig. 22) includes at least one of an active optical element and an inactive optical element (light emitting element 513 is inactive as it does not change while it moves to irradiates light at
corresponding positions paragraph [0330]).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use the movable light emitting element with the display as taught by Lee in the display module of Du. The light emitting unit only needs to be active in the IPD position being used. (paragraph [0331]).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Du and Schultz discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Du does not explicitly disclose, wherein the frame is adapted to be worn by the user.
However Lee discloses in at least figure 5, wherein the frame (frame 100 fig. 5) is adapted to be worn by the user (the frame 100 may be flexible so that it can be worn comfortably by the user paragraph [0180]).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use a wearable frame with the display as taught by Lee with the display module of Du. The glass-type electronic device may be shaped to be worn on the head of the user, for which the frame (case or housing) 100 may be used (paragraph [0180]).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Du and Schultz discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Du does not explicitly disclose, further comprising at least one of:
a frame;
side arms and supports for goggles or glasses;
a helmet or visor;
a headband;
a neck or shoulder worn support; and
a headset.
However Lee discloses in at least figure 5, further comprising at least one of:
a frame (frame 100 fig. 5);
side arms and supports (side frame 120 fig. 5) for goggles or glasses (front frame 110 fig. 5);
a helmet or visor (not required by claim);
a headband (not required by claim);
a neck or shoulder worn support (not required by claim); and
a headset (not required by claim).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use a frame with supports as taught by Lee with the display module of Du. The glass-type electronic device may be shaped to be worn on the head of the user, for which the frame (case or housing) 100 may be used (paragraph [0180]).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Du and Schultz discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Du does not explicitly disclose, wherein the optics device is in the form of a head mounted display.
However Lee discloses in at least figure 3, wherein the optics device (the electronic device 30 fig. 3) is in the form of a head mounted display (head worn unit 31 fig. 3).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use a head mounted display as taught by Lee with the display module of Du. The glass-type electronic device may be shaped to be worn on the head of the user, for which the frame (case or housing) 100 may be used (paragraph [0180]).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Du and Schultz discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Du does not explicitly disclose, wherein the optics device is in the form of a head worn display.
However Lee discloses in at least figure 5, wherein the optics device (frame 100 fig. 5) is in the form of a head worn display (the frame 100 may be worn on the head of the user paragraph [0180]).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use a head worn display as taught by Lee with the display module of Du. The glass-type electronic device may be shaped to be worn on the head of the user, for which the frame (case or housing) 100 may be used (paragraph [0180]).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Du and Schultz discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Du does not explicitly disclose, wherein the optics device is in the form of one of a heads-up display and a 3D camera display.
However Lee discloses in at least figure 5, wherein the optics device (frame 100 fig. 5) is in the form of one of a heads-up display (XR device 13 fig. 1) or a 3D camera display (not required by claim).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use a heads up display as taught by Lee with the display module of Du. The glass-type electronic device may be shaped to be worn on the head of the user, for which the frame (case or housing) 100 may be used (paragraph [0180]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du (US 20220283441 A1) in view of Schultz et al. (US 20200278554 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Spitzer et al. (US 20040212776 Al).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Du and Schultz discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Du does not explicitly disclose, wherein single waveguide covers both eyes of the user comprises two sections, one for each eye.
However Spitzer discloses in at least figure 1, wherein the single waveguide (optical pipe
element 10 fig. 1 includes optical components to transmit an image from the display to the user
paragraph [0048], single waveguide previously taught above by Du) of the single wave
guide (display assemblies 5 fig. 1, waveguide previously taught above by Lee paragraph [0206])
covers both eyes of the user (left and right eye as shown below in fig. 1).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use a waveguide with two sections as taught by Spitzer in the display module of Du. The waveguide with two sections allows for both eyes to be shown a display.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du (US 20220283441 A1) in view of Schultz et al. (US 20200278554 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Chow et al. (US 20160223820 Al).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Du and Schultz discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Du does not explicitly disclose, wherein the adjustment mechanism comprises a tilting mechanism to change the angular position of the optical element.
However Chow disclose in at least figure 12, wherein the adjustment mechanism (front frame portion 18a fig. 12, the adjustment mechanism is described as a slide rail in paragraph [0032] of the application and is being interpreted as a slide rail) comprises a tilting mechanism (hinge 40 fig. 12) to change the angular position (optical axis tilt fig. 12) of the optical element (exit window 13 fig. 12).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to tilt the angle of the optical element as taught by Chow in the display module of Du. The light from the optical element can be tilted to be in better view of the user.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du (US 20220283441 A1) in view of Schultz et al. (US 20200278554 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Suzuki (US 20190353897 Al).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Du and Schultz discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Du does not explicitly disclose, wherein optical elements are automatically adjusted relative to the adjustment mechanism to position the optical elements at one or more predetermined positions.
However Suzuki discloses in at least figure 6, wherein optical elements (collimator lens 22 fig. 6)
are automatically adjusted (the control unit 34 controls and causes the adjustment unit 38 to move the
position of the collimator lens 22 paragraph [0076]) relative to the adjustment mechanism (adjustment
unit 38 fig. 6, the adjustment mechanism is described as a slide rail in paragraph [0032] of the application and is being interpreted as a slide rail) to position the optical element (collimator lens 22 fig.
6) at one or more predetermined positions (instructed position from the user paragraph [0076]).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to move the optical element as taught by Suzuki in the display module of Du. Moving
the collimating elements changes the distance between the light source and collimator (paragraph
[0078]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du (US 20220283441 A1) in view of Schultz et al. (US 20200278554 A1) and Suzuki (US 20190353897 Al) as applied to claim 11 above and in view of Lang (US 20190333480 Al).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Du, Schultz and Suzuki discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Du does not explicitly disclose, wherein the one or more predetermined positions are based on a stored user profile.
However Lang discloses, wherein the one or more predetermined positions (OHMD display
position paragraph [0273]) are based on a stored user profile (the OHMD can store user profiles to
adjust position based on the interocular distance of the user paragraph [0272]).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use saved user profiles as taught by Lang to adjust the positions in the display module of Du. Using saved positions helps save time by not needing to reregister the positions
paragraph [0273]).
Claims 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du (US 20220283441 A1) in view of Spitzer et al. (US 20040212776 A1), Kamakura (US 20200310140 A1) and Lee (US 20210063754 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Du discloses in at least figure 2, an optics device (display module paragraph [0024]) comprising:
a single waveguide (waveguide 21 fig. 2) supportable on (a first diffractive waveguide 21 is arranged on the bracket 20 paragraph [0024]) a frame (bracket 20 fig. 2), the single waveguide (waveguide 21 fig. 2) having an input region (the first entrance pupil grating 211 is arranged in the first region 2001 paragraph [0027], shown below as input region including the input area in the current application fig. 4) and output region (the first exit pupil grating 212 is arranged in a region the third region 2003 paragraph [0027], shown below as output region including output area in the current application fig. 4), the input region (the first entrance pupil grating 211 is arranged in the first region 2001 paragraph [0027], shown below as input region including the input area in the current application fig. 4) to receive light (an optical image may be projected to the first entrance pupil grating 211 using an optical machine paragraph [0028]) and the output region (the first exit pupil grating 212 is arranged in a region the third region 2003 paragraph [0027], shown below as output region including output area in the current application fig. 4) to provide exit pupils for the optics device respectively directable to both eyes of the user (the first exit pupil grating 212 may be configured to output the optical image for human eye perception paragraph [0027];
deliver light (an optical image may be projected to the first entrance pupil grating 211 using an optical machine paragraph [0028]) to the input region (the first entrance pupil grating 211 is arranged in the first region 2001 paragraph [0027], shown below as input region including the input area in the current application fig. 4) of the single waveguide (waveguide 21 fig. 2) over an input area (first entrance pupil grating 211 fig. 2, shown below as input area in the current application fig. 4) of the single waveguide (waveguide 21 fig. 2) such that light is to leave (the first exit pupil grating 212 may be configured to output the optical image for human eye perception paragraph [0027]) the output region (the first exit pupil grating 212 is arranged in a region the third region 2003 paragraph [0027], shown below as output region including output area in the current application fig. 4) of the single waveguide (waveguide 21 fig. 2) over an output area (first exit pupil grating 212 fig. 2, shown below as out area in the current application fig. 4) of the single waveguide (waveguide 21 fig. 2) that is larger than (the third region 2003 is larger than the first region 2001 fig. 2) the input area (first entrance pupil grating 211 fig. 2, shown below as input area in the current application fig. 4) of the single waveguide (waveguide 21 fig. 2), the output area (first exit pupil grating 212 fig. 2, shown below as out area in the current application fig. 4) and the input area (first entrance pupil grating 211 fig. 2, shown below as input area in the current application fig. 4) of the single waveguide (waveguide 21 fig. 2) parallel to each other (the first exit pupil grating 212 and first entrance pupil grating 211 are parallel fig. 2) and non-overlapping with each other (the first exit pupil grating 212 and first entrance pupil grating 211 are non-overlapping fig. 2),
the input region (the first entrance pupil grating 211 is arranged in the first region 2001 paragraph [0027], shown below as input region including the input area in the current application fig. 4) of the single waveguide (waveguide 21 fig. 2) being oversized (the first region 2001 is oversized compared to the first entrance pupil 211 fig. 2) relative to the input area (first entrance pupil grating 211 fig. 2, shown below as input area in the current application fig. 4) of the single waveguide (waveguide 21 fig. 2) and the output region (the first exit pupil grating 212 is arranged in a region the third region 2003 paragraph [0027], shown below as output region including output area in the current application fig. 4) of the single waveguide is oversized (the third region 2003 is oversized relative to the first exit pupil grating 212 fig. 2) relative to the output area (first exit pupil grating 212 fig. 2, shown below as out area in the current application fig. 4) of the single waveguide (waveguide 21 fig. 2) to accommodate for different interpupillary distances (IPD) of different users (the first diffractive waveguide 21 may slide on the bracket 20 and is configured to correspond to the eyes of the user in a one to one correspondence paragraph [0024]).
PNG
media_image1.png
554
897
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
737
707
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Du does not disclose, a single waveguide supportable on a frame and arranged to cover both eyes of a user,
two collimating elements, one for each of the eyes of the user, coupled to the single waveguide, to ensure formation of exit pupil outputs for a given field-of-view such that the exit pupils outputs are aligned to each of the eyes of the user, respectively,
one of the two collimating elements configured to deliver light to the input region,
each of the two collimating elements being moveably attached to an adjustment mechanism that is supportable on the frame to enable each of the two collimating elements to be moved respectively in line with each of the eyes of the user.
However Spitzer discloses in at least figure 1, a single waveguide (optical pipe element 10 fig. 1 includes optical components to transmit an image from the display to the user paragraph [0048], waveguide taught above by Du) supportable on a frame (joining rail 100 fig. 1) and arranged to cover both eyes of a user (the optical pipe covers both eyes fig. 1),
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use a waveguide with two sections as taught by Spitzer in the display module of Du. The waveguide with two sections allows for both eyes to be shown a display.
Additionally Kamakura discloses in at least figures 1 and 6, two collimating elements (projection lens 30 and display element 80 fig. 6, the imaging light GL entering the projection lens 30 from display element 80 is not parallel to the optical axis while the imaging light GL exiting projection lens 30 is parallel to the optical axis ax fig. 6 same for 100b paragraph [0046], the collimating elements are described as comprising a series of lenses in paragraph [0046] of the application and are being interpreted as a lens group), one for each of the eyes of the user (the first display device 100A and the second display device 100B part of light guiding unit 100c fig. 1 each have a left-right symmetric and equivalent structure, only the first display device 100A will be described in fig. 6 paragraph [0046]), coupled to (the projection lenses 30 are coupled to each side of light guiding element 100c fig. 1) the single waveguide (single waveguide taught above by Du), to ensure formation (the imaging light GL from light emitting part 20b forms EP after passing through projection lenses 30 fig. 6) of exit pupil outputs (exit pupil EP fig. 6) for a given field-of-view (the field of view is the area at the exit pupil between imaging light GL fig. 6) such that the exit pupils outputs (exit pupil EP fig. 6) are aligned to each of the eyes of the user (the first display device 100A and the second display device 100B part of light guiding unit 100c fig. 1 each have a left-right symmetric and equivalent structure, only the first display device 100A will be described in fig. 6 paragraph [0046]),
one of the two collimating elements (projection lens 30 and display element 80 fig. 6, the imaging light GL entering the projection lens 30 from display element 80 is not parallel to the optical axis while the imaging light GL exiting projection lens 30 is parallel to the optical axis ax fig. 6 same for 100b paragraph [0046], the collimating elements are described as comprising a series of lenses in paragraph [0046] of the application and are being interpreted as a lens group) configured to deliver light (imaging light GL is delivered from projection lens 30 to light incident part 20 a fig. 6) to the input region (light incident part 20a fig. 1).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use two collimating elements as taught by Kamakura in the display module of Du. The projection lens 30 and display element make the imaging light GL exiting projection lens 30 is parallel to the optical axis ax (paragraph [0046]).
Further Lee discloses in at least figure 22, respectively, each of the two (two collimating
elements taught above by Kamakura as part of the display) collimating elements (light emitting unit 513)
being moveably attached (the light emitting element 513 moves along the guide 513a through optical
elements 531a-c figs. 22a) to an adjustment mechanism (guide 513a fig. 22, the adjustment mechanism
is described as a slide rail in paragraph [0032] of the application and is being interpreted as a slide rail)
that is supportable on the frame (frame 100 fig. 18) to enable each of the two (two collimating elements
taught above by Kamakura as part of the display) collimating elements (light emitting unit 513) to be
moved respectively (the light emitting element 513 moves along the guide 513a through optical
elements 531a-c figs. 22a) in line (the optical elements 531a-c transfers the image to a position suitable
for a user paragraphs [0332-0334]) with each of the eyes of the user (user eye as shown below in fig.
22).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to move the light emitting display as taught by Lee with the collimating elements in
the display device of Du. The light emitting element moves to a position to account for the users
IPD (paragraphs [0332-0334]).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Du, Spitzer, Kamakura and Lee discloses all the limitations of claim 20.
Du does not disclose, wherein the two collimating elements include a display.
However Kamakura further discloses, wherein the two collimating elements (projection lens 30 and display element 80 fig. 6 same for 100b paragraph [0046]) include (imaging light GL from display
element 80 moves through projection lens 30 fig. 6) a display (display element 80 fig. 6).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use two collimating elements as taught by Kamakura in the display module of Du. The projection lens 30 and display element make the imaging light GL exiting projection lens 30 is parallel to the optical axis ax (paragraph [0046]).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du (US 20220283441 A1) in view of Spitzer et al. (US 20040212776 A1), Kamakura (US 20200310140 A1) and Lee (US 20210063754 A1) as applied to claim 20 above and in further view of Alexander (GB 2559605 A).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Du, Spitzer, Kamakura and Lee discloses all the limitations of claim 20.
Du does not disclose, further comprising a control system to provide optical compensation to the two collimating elements caused by the movement thereof.
However Alexander discloses in at least figure 1, further comprising a control system (control
means 114 fig 1) to provide optical compensation (the system 120 uses control means 114 to
compensate for the optical distortion due to the movement of movable optical element 108 by sending
a transformation signal to be applied to the image data pg. 14 para. 2) to the two (two collimating
elements taught above by Kamakura) collimating elements (movable optical elements 108 displays
parallel rays fig. 1) caused by the movement thereof (the movement of movable optical element 108
adjusts the position of the eye box 102 pg. 11 para. 2 and the movement of the eye box causes
distortion because a different region of the windshield is used which has a different angle pg. 11 para. 3).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use a control system as taught by Alexander to compensate for the movement of
the optical element in the display module of Du. The control means adjusts the positions the eye box to include the users eyes (pg. 11 para. 4).
Claims 23-24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du (US 20220283441 A1) in view of Spitzer et al. (US 20040212776 A1), Kamakura (US 20200310140 A1) and Lee (US 20210063754 A1) as applied to claim 20 above and in further view of Chow (US 20160223820 Al).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Du, Spitzer, Kamakura and Lee discloses all the limitations of claim 20.
Du does not disclose, wherein the two collimating elements are adapted to be moved in a horizontal direction to adapt to an interpupillary distance of the user.
However Chow discloses in at least figure 14, wherein the two collimating elements (optics 14
fig. 14) are adapted (optics 14 are part of display module 12 paragraph [0037]) to be moved (display
module 12 is connected to exit window 13 fig. 14 which can be moved paragraph [0038]) in a horizontal
direction (exit window 13 is moved in left and right [0038]), to adapt to an interpupillary distance of the
user (to align with different interpupillary distances paragraph [0038]).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to move the collimating elements to adapt to inter pupillarity distance as taught by
Chow in the display module of Du. The light from the optical element can be tilted to be in better view of the user.
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Du, Spitzer, Kamakura and Lee discloses all the limitations of claim 20.
Du does not disclose, wherein the adjustment mechanism further comprises a tilting mechanism to change the angular position of an optical element.
However Chow disclose in at least figure 12, wherein the adjustment mechanism (front frame
portion 18a fig. 12, the adjustment mechanism is described as a slide rail in paragraph [0032] of the
application and is being interpreted as a slide rail) further comprises a tilting mechanism (Hinge 40 fig.
12) to change the angular position (optical axis tilt fig. 12) of the optical element (exit window 13 fig.
12).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to tilt the angle of the optical element as taught by Chow in the display device of Du. The light from the optical element can be tilted to be in better view of the user.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du (US 20220283441 A1) in view of Spitzer et al. (US 20040212776 A1), Kamakura (US 20200310140 A1) and Lee (US 20210063754 A1) as applied to claim 20 above and in further view of Suzuki (US 20190353897 Al).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Du, Spitzer, Kamakura and Lee discloses all the limitations of claim 20.
Du does not disclose, wherein the two collimating elements are automatically adjusted by the adjustment mechanism to position each of the two collimating elements at one or more predetermined positions.
However Suzuki further discloses, wherein the two (two collimating elements taught above by
Kamakura) collimating elements (collimator lens 22 fig. 6) are automatically adjusted (the control unit 34
controls and causes the adjustment unit 38 to move the position of the collimator lens 22 paragraph
[0076]) by the adjustment mechanism (adjustment unit 38 fig. 6, the adjustment mechanism is
described as a slide rail in paragraph [0032] of the application and is being interpreted as a slide rail) to
position each of the two (two collimating elements taught above by Kamakura) collimating elements
(collimator lens 22 fig. 6) at one or more predetermined positions (instructed position from the user
paragraph [0076]).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to move the collimating elements as taught by Suzuki in the display device of Du. Moving the collimating elements changes the distance between the light source and collimator (paragraph [0078]).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du (US 20220283441 A1) in view of Spitzer et al. (US 20040212776 A1), Kamakura (US 20200310140 A1) and Lee (US 20210063754 A1) as applied to claim 20 above and in further view of Lang (US 20190333480 Al).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Du, Spitzer, Kamakura and Lee discloses all the limitations of claim 20.
Du does not disclose, wherein the one or more predetermined positions are based on a stored user profile.
However Lang discloses, wherein the one or more predetermined positions (OHMD display
position paragraph [0273]) are based on a stored user profile (the OHMD can store user profiles to
adjust position based on the interocular distance of the user paragraph [0272]).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use saved user profiles as taught by Lang to adjust the positions of the display module of Du. Using saved positions helps save time by not needing to reregister the positions
paragraph [0273]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chester et al. (US 20190064529 A1) discloses a light projection engine that is adjustable with respect to the waveguide.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANDREW R WRIGHT whose telephone number is (703)756-5822. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30-5 Friday 8-12.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pinping Sun can be reached at 1-571-270-1284. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANDREW R WRIGHT/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/PINPING SUN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872