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 08/07/2026, 06/11/2026 and 04/30/2026. An initialed copy is attached to this Office Action.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1 and 20 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 10, filed 06/11/2026, with respect to the drawing objection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The drawing objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 06/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First Applicant argues on page that 11 that Sugihara 1, does not disclose the amended limitations of claim 1 because the combination of Du, Sugihara 1, and Sugihara 2 does not disclose, "optical element being moveably attached to an adjustment mechanism that is supportable on the frame to enable the optical element to be moved while the single waveguide is stationary, the optical element to be moved from a first position that overlaps a first portion of the input region of the single waveguide to a second position that overlaps a second portion of the input region of 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 in accordance with an IPD of the user" where the "single waveguide supportable on a frame to be positionable to overlap both eyes of a user such that no additional waveguide is supported on the frame."
Examiner Disagrees and has cited Miller to disclose, “a single waveguide (waveguide 205 fig. 2) supportable on (a waveguide 205 can be incorporated into lenses 3102 that are attached to the HMD device 3100 col. 12 lines 45-49) a frame (HMO device 3100 fig. 31) to be positionable to overlap (waveguide 205 covers the both the left eye 115L and right eye 115R fig. 2) both eyes of a user (left eye 115L and right eye 115R fig. 2) such that no additional waveguide is supported on (the HMD device 3100 can comprise one waveguide systems, such as a near-eye optical display system, incorporated into the lenses 3102 col. 12 lines 43-48 coving both eyes as shown in fig. 2) the frame (HMD device 3100 fig. 31)” and Sugihara to disclose, the optical element (condenser lens 1503 fig. 15a) to be moved from a first position (first position as shown below in fig. 15a) that overlaps (the first position overlaps the first portion as shown below in fig. 15a) a first portion (first portion as shown below in fig. 15a) of the input region (input region as shown below in fig. 15a) of the single waveguide (optical system 1501 fig. 15a, single waveguide taught above by Miller) to a second position (second position as shown below in fig. 15a) that overlaps (the second position overlaps the second portion as shown below in fig. 15a) a second portion (second portion as shown below in fig. 15) of the input region (input region as shown below in fig. 15a) of the single waveguide (optical system 1501 fig. 15a, single waveguide taught above by Miller) so as to allow the exit pupil (exit pupil as shown below in fig. 15a) of the single waveguide (optical system 1501 fig. 15a, single waveguide taught above by Miller) to be moved relative to the frame (the condenser lens 1503 which are moved together relative to the combiner optical system 1501 paragraph [0009]), so as to be in line with (moving distance of the position of the exit pupil L2 fig. 15a) the eye of the user (eye as shown below in fig. 15a) in accordance with an IPD of the user (a small mechanical adjustment can produce a great effect of adjusting the interpupillary distance paragraph [0053] shown as L2 fig. 15a). Sugihara discloses the movement of an optical element that can be combined with the single waveguide taught by Miller to move the position of the exit pupil to account for different pupil distances of the user.
Second Applicant argues on page 12 that the combination of Miller and Waldern, does not disclose the amended limitations of claim 20 because the combination of Miller, Wheelwright and Waldern does not disclose, "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 while the single waveguide is stationary, each of the two collimating elements being moved from a respective first position that overlaps a respective first portion of the input region of the single waveguide to a respective second position that overlaps a respective second portion of the input region of the single waveguide respectively in line with each of the eyes of the user in accordance with an IPD of the user" where the "single waveguide supportable on a frame and arranged to cover both eyes of a user, the single waveguide having an input region and output region".
Examiner Disagrees and has cited Miller to disclose, “a single waveguide (waveguide 205 fig. 2) supportable on (a waveguide 205 can be incorporated into lenses 3102 that are attached to the HMD device 3100 col. 12 lines 45-49) a frame (HMO device 3100 fig. 31) to be positionable to overlap (waveguide 205 covers the both the left eye 115L and right eye 115R fig. 2) both eyes of a user (left eye 115L and right eye 115R fig. 2) such that no additional waveguide is supported on (the HMD device 3100 can comprise one waveguide systems, such as a near-eye optical display system, incorporated into the lenses 3102 col. 12 lines 43-48 coving both eyes as shown in fig. 2) the frame (HMD device 3100 fig. 31)” and Mukawa to disclose “each of the two collimating elements (collimator optical system 112 fig. 8A) being moveably attached to an adjustment mechanism (the collimator optical system 112 is placed in a movement guiding unit 42 paragraph [0158]) to an adjustment mechanism (movement guiding unit 42 fig. 8A) that is supportable on (the movement guiding unit 42 is supportable on movement device 40 fig. 8A ) the frame (movement device 40 fig. 8A) to enable each of the two collimating elements (collimator optical system 112 fig. 8A) to be moved (a movement device 40 that relatively moves an optical axis of an optical system 112 in a horizontal direction paragraph [0157]) while the single waveguide (light guide 120 fig. 8A single waveguide taught above by Miller) is stationary (the light guide 120 is stationary while the collimator optical system 112 is moved from a first position as shown below in fig. 8A to a second position as shown below in fig. 8B)”. Mukawa discloses movable collimating elements that can be combined with the single waveguide taught by Miller to move the position of the exit pupil to account for different pupil distances of the user.
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, 4-6, 8, 14-17, 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al (US 10345519 B1) in view of Waldern et al. (US 20190212699 A1), Mukawa (US 20120032874 A1) and Sugihara (US 20130182334 A1).
Regarding claim 1, an optics device (exit pupil expander 130 fig. 2) comprising:
a single waveguide (waveguide 205 fig. 2) supportable on (a waveguide 205 can be incorporated
into lenses 3102 that are attached to the HMD device 3100 col. 12 lines 45-49) a frame (HMO device
3100 fig. 31) to be positionable to overlap (waveguide 205 covers the both the left eye 115L and right eye 115R fig. 2) both eyes of a user (left eye 115L and right eye 115R fig. 2) such that no additional waveguide is supported on (the HMD device 3100 can comprise one waveguide systems, such as a near-eye optical display system, incorporated into the lenses 3102 col. 12 lines 43-48 coving both eyes as shown in fig. 2) the frame (HMD device 3100 fig. 31), the single waveguide (waveguide 205 fig. 2) having an input region (input region as shown below in fig. 2) and an output region (output region as shown below in fig. 2), the input region (input region as shown below in fig. 2) to receive light (EPE 130 receives an input comprising one or more optical beams from the imager 105 and through the display engine 128 as an entrance pupil col. 5 lines 46-48 in the input region as shown below in fig. 2) and the output region (output region as shown below in fig. 2) to provide an exit pupil (the exit pupil of EPE is in the output region as shown below in fig. 2) for the optics device (exit pupil expander 130 fig. 2) that directs light forming an image (the output region directs the light from the display engine 128 from the entrance pupil to both the left eye 115L and right eye 115R fig. 2 fig. 2) to the eyes of the user (left eye 115L and right eye 115R fig. 2); and
an optical element (display engine 128 fig. 2) configured to receive (EPE 130 receives an input comprising one or more optical beams from the imager 105 and through the display engine 128 as an entrance pupil col. 5 lines 46-48) the light forming an image (system 100 may include one or more imagers 105 that deliver images as a virtual display to a user's eye 115 col. 4 lines 45-48) from an image plane (imager 105 fig. 2) and delivers the light (the imager 105 delivers light to the input region as shown below in fig. 2) to the input region (input region as shown below in fig. 2) of the single waveguide (waveguide 205 fig. 2) over an input area (entrance pupil of EPE fig. 2) of the single waveguide (waveguide 205 fig. 2) such that the light is to leave (the light leaves the output region at the exit pupils of the EPE as shown below in fig. 2) the output region (output region as shown below in fig. 2) of the single waveguide (waveguide 205 fig. 2) over an output area (exit pupil of EPE fig. 2) of the single waveguide (waveguide 205 fig. 2) that is larger than (the output region is larger than the entrance pupil as shown below in fig. 2) the input area (entrance pupil of EPE fig. 2) of the single waveguide (waveguide 205 fig. 2), the output area (exit pupil of EPE fig. 2) and the input area (entrance pupil of EPE fig. 2) of the single waveguide (waveguide 205 fig. 2) parallel to each other (the exit pupil of EPE and the entrance pupil of EPE are parallel fig. 2) and non-overlapping with each other (the exit pupil of EPE and the entrance pupil of EPE are non-overlapping fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
844
868
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Miller does not disclose, the input region of the single waveguide being oversized relative to the input area of the single waveguide and the output region of the single waveguide is oversized relative to the output area of the single waveguide to accommodate for different interpupillary distances (IPD) of different users;
the optical element being moveably attached to an adjustment mechanism that is supportable on the frame to enable the optical element to be moved while the single is stationary,
the optical element to be moved from a first position that overlaps a first portion of the input region of the single waveguide to a second position that overlaps a second portion of the input region of 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 in accordance with an IPD of the user.
However Waldern discloses in at least figure 9, the input region (input grating element 903
fig. 9) of the single waveguide (waveguide 900 fig. 9) being oversized relative to (the input grating
element 903 is oversized relative to the input area as shown below in fig. 9) the input area (input area as
shown below in fig. 9) of the single waveguide (waveguide 900 fig. 9) and the output region (output
grating element 904 fig. 9) of the single waveguide (waveguide 900 fig. 9) is oversized relative to (the
output grating element 904 is oversized relative to the output area as shown below in fig. 9) the output
area (output area as shown below in fig. 9) of the single waveguide (waveguide 900 fig. 9) to accommodate for different interpupillary distances (IPD) of different users (the exit pupil expansion
allows light to be output at different eye positions fig. 9).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use an oversized input and output regions as taught by Waldern in the exit pupil expander of Miller. This lossy extraction permits exit pupil expansion as the remaining light can continue to travel within the waveguide 900 and, once the light is again incident on the output grating 904, the scenario described above can occur again (paragraph [0085]).
Additionally Mukawa discloses in at least figure 8a, the optical element (collimator optical system 112 fig. 8A) being moveably attached (the collimator optical system 112 is placed in a movement guiding unit 42 paragraph [0158]) to an adjustment mechanism (movement guiding unit 42 fig. 8A) that is supportable on (the movement guiding unit 42 is supportable on movement device 40 fig. 8A ) the frame (movement device 40 fig. 8A) to enable the optical element (collimator optical system 112 fig. 8A) to be moved (a movement device 40 that relatively moves an optical axis of an optical system 112 in a horizontal direction paragraph [0157]) while the single waveguide (light guide 120 fig. 8A single waveguide taught above by Miller) is stationary (the light guide 120 is stationary while the collimator optical system 112 is moved from a first position as shown below in fig. 8A to a second position as shown below in fig. 8B).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use movable optical elements supportable on the frame as taught by Mukawa in the exit pupil expander of Miller. An observer 20 can view the image that is naturally displayed by the image displaying device without modifying or changing the focus much paragraph [0160]).
Further Sugihara discloses in at least figure 15a, the optical element (condenser lens 1503 fig. 15a) to be moved from a first position (first position as shown below in fig. 15a) that overlaps (the first position overlaps the first portion as shown below in fig. 15a) a first portion (first portion as shown below in fig. 15a) of the input region (input region as shown below in fig. 15a) of the single waveguide (optical system 1501 fig. 15a, single waveguide taught above by Miller) to a second position (second position as shown below in fig. 15a) that overlaps (the second position overlaps the second portion as shown below in fig. 15a) a second portion (second portion as shown below in fig. 15) of the input region (input region as shown below in fig. 15a) of the single waveguide (optical system 1501 fig. 15a, single waveguide taught above by Miller) so as to allow the exit pupil (exit pupil as shown below in fig. 15a) of the single waveguide (optical system 1501 fig. 15a, single waveguide taught above by Miller) to be moved relative to the frame (the condenser lens 1503 which are moved together relative to the combiner optical system 1501 paragraph [0009]), so as to be in line with (moving distance of the position of the exit pupil L2 fig. 15a) the eye of the user (eye as shown below in fig. 15a) in accordance with an IPD of the user (a small mechanical adjustment can produce a great effect of adjusting the interpupillary distance paragraph [0053] shown as L2 fig. 15a).
PNG
media_image2.png
749
1137
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 with respect to the waveguide as taught by Sugihara in
the exit pupil expander of Miller. Moving the position of the display panel 1502 and the condenser lens 1503 moves the position of the exit pupil (paragraph [0010]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Miller, Waldern, Mukawa and Sugihara discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Miller does not disclose, wherein the optical element comprises two optical elements, with one optical element for each eye of the user.
However Mukawa further discloses, the optical element (collimator optical system 112 fig. 8A) comprises two optical elements (there are two collimator optical system 112 fig. 8A), with one optical element for each (there is a collimator optical system 112 for each pupil 21 fig. 8A) eye of the user (pupil 21 fig. 8A).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use movable optical elements supportable on the frame as taught by Mukawa in the exit pupil expander of Miller. An observer 20 can view the image that is naturally displayed by the image displaying device without modifying or changing the focus much paragraph [0160]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Miller, Waldern, Mukawa and Sugihara discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Miller does not explicitly disclose, wherein the optical element is a collimating element.
However Mukawa further discloses, wherein the optical element (collimator optical system 112 fig. 8A) is a collimating element (a collimator optical system 112 that makes light emitted from the pixels of the image forming device 111 to be parallel light paragraph [0003]).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use movable collimating elements supportable on the frame as taught by Mukawa in the exit pupil expander of Miller. Configuring an HMD by using the above-described image displaying device 100, a miniaturized, lightweight device can be realized (paragraph [0003]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Miller, Waldern, Mukawa and Sugihara discloses all the limitations of claim 4.
Miller does not explicitly disclose, wherein the collimating element includes a display.
However Mukawa further discloses, wherein the collimating element (collimator optical system 112 fig. 8A) includes (the optical system 112 of the image forming device 111 paragraph [0158] )a display (image forming devices 111A and 111B fig. 8A).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use movable collimating elements with displays supportable on the frame as taught by Mukawa in the exit pupil expander of Miller. Configuring an HMD by using the above-described image displaying device 100, a miniaturized, lightweight device can be realized (paragraph [0003]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Miller, Waldern, Mukawa and Sugihara discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Miller 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 Sugihara further discloses, wherein the optical element (condenser lens 1503 fig. 15a) is adapted to be moved in a horizontal direction (the condenser lens 1503 moves a distance L1 from a first position to a second position in a horizontal direction as shown below in fig. 15a ) to adapt to an interpupillary distance of the user (a small mechanical adjustment can produce a great effect of adjusting the interpupillary distance paragraph [0053] shown as L2 fig. 15a).
PNG
media_image2.png
749
1137
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 with respect to the waveguide as taught by Sugihara in
the exit pupil expander of Miller. Moving the position of the display panel 1502 and the condenser lens 1503 moves the position of the exit pupil (paragraph [0010]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Miller, Waldern, Mukawa and Sugihara discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and Miller further discloses, wherein single waveguide (waveguide 205 fig. 2) covers both eyes of the user (the waveguide covers the left eye 115L and the right eye 115R fig. 2) comprises two sections (out coupling gratings 210L and 210R fig. 2), one for each eye (left eye 115L and the right eye 115R fig. 2).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Miller, Waldern, Mukawa and Sugihara discloses all the
limitations of claim 1 and Miller further discloses, wherein the frame (HMD device 3100 fig. 31) is adapted to be worn by the user (HMD device 3100 comprises one or more lenses 3102 that form a part of a see-through display subsystem 3104, so that images may be displayed using lenses 3102 (e.g. using projection onto lenses 3102, one or more waveguide systems, such as a near-eye optical display system, incorporated into the lenses 3102 col. 12 lines 43-48).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Miller, Waldern, Mukawa and Sugihara discloses all the
limitations of claim 1 and Miller further discloses, further comprising at least one of:
a frame (the HMD device 3100 has a frame as shown below in fig. 31);
side arms and supports for goggles or glasses (the HMD device 3100 has side supports as shown below in fig. 31);
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).
PNG
media_image3.png
379
689
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Miller, Waldern, Mukawa and Sugihara discloses all the
limitations of claim 1 and Miller further discloses, wherein the optics device (exit pupil expander 130 fig. 2) is in the form of a head mounted display (HMD device 3100 comprises one or more lenses 3102 that form a part of a see-through display subsystem 3104, so that images may be displayed using lenses 3102 (e.g. using projection onto lenses 3102, one or more waveguide systems, such as a near-eye optical display system, incorporated into the lenses 3102 col. 12 lines 43-48).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Miller, Waldern, Mukawa and Sugihara discloses all the
limitations of claim 1 and Miller further discloses, wherein the optics device (exit pupil expander 130 fig. 2) is in the form of a head worn display (HMD device 3100 comprises one or more lenses 3102 that form a part of a see-through display subsystem 3104, so that images may be displayed using lenses 3102 (e.g. using projection onto lenses 3102, one or more waveguide systems, such as a near-eye optical display system, incorporated into the lenses 3102 col. 12 lines 43-48).
Regarding claim 20, Miller discloses in at least figure 2, an optics device (exit pupil expander 130
fig. 2) comprising:
a single waveguide (waveguide 205 fig. 2) supportable on (a waveguide 205 can be incorporated
into lenses 3102 that are attached to the HMO device 3100 col. 12 lines 45-49) a frame (HMO device
3100 fig. 31) and arranged to cover (waveguide 205 covers the both the left eye 115L and right eye 115R
fig. 2) both eyes of a user (left eye 115L and right eye 115R fig. 2), the single waveguide (waveguide 205
fig. 2) having an input region (entrance pupil of EPE fig. 2) and output region (exit pupil of EPE fig. 2), the
input region (entrance pupil of EPE fig. 2) to receive light (EPE 130 receives an input comprising one or
more optical beams from the imager 105 and through the display engine 128 as an entrance pupil col. 5
lines 46-48) and the output region (exit pupil of EPE fig. 2) to provide exit pupils for the optics device (exit pupil expander 130 fig. 2) that direct light forming an image (the output region directs the light from the display engine 128 from the entrance pupil to both the left eye 115L and right eye 115R fig. 2 fig. 2) to both eyes of the user (left eye 115L and right eye 115R fig. 2);
an output area (exit pupil of EPE fig. 2) of the single waveguide (waveguide 205 fig. 2) that is larger than (the output region is larger than the entrance pupil as shown below in fig. 2) the input area (entrance pupil of EPE fig. 2) of the single waveguide (waveguide 205 fig. 2), the output area (exit pupil of EPE fig. 2) and the input area (entrance pupil of EPE fig. 2) of the single waveguide (waveguide 205 fig. 2) parallel to each other (the exit pupil of EPE and the entrance pupil of EPE are parallel fig. 2) and non-overlapping with each other (the exit pupil of EPE and the entrance pupil of EPE are non-overlapping fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
844
868
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Miller does not disclose, 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 receive light forming the image and deliver the light to the input region of the single waveguide over an input area of the single waveguide such that the light is to leave the output region of the single waveguide over an output area of the single waveguide,
the input region of the single waveguide being oversized relative to of the single waveguide and the output region of the single waveguide is oversized relative to the output area of the single waveguide to accommodate for different interpupillary distances (IPD) of different users.
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 while the single waveguide is stationary, each of the two collimating elements being moved from a respective first position that overlaps a respective first portion of the single waveguide to a respective second position that overlaps a respective second portion of the single waveguide respectively in line
with each of the eyes of the user in accordance with an IPD of the user.
However Waldern discloses in at least figure 9, the input region (input grating element 903
fig. 9) of the single waveguide (waveguide 900 fig. 9) being oversized relative to (the input grating
element 903 is oversized relative to the input area as shown below in fig. 9) the input area (input area as
shown below in fig. 9) of the single waveguide (waveguide 900 fig. 9) and the output region (output
grating element 904 fig. 9) of the single waveguide (waveguide 900 fig. 9) is oversized relative to (the
output grating element 904 is oversized relative to the output area as shown below in fig. 9) the output
area (output area as shown below in fig. 9) of the single waveguide (waveguide 900 fig. 9) to accommodate for different interpupillary distances (IPD) of different users (the exit pupil expansion
allows light to be output at different eye positions fig. 9).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use an oversized input and output regions as taught by Waldern in the exit pupil expander of Miller. This lossy extraction permits exit pupil expansion as the remaining light can continue to travel within the waveguide 900 and, once the light is again incident on the output grating 904, the scenario described above can occur again (paragraph [0085]).
Additionally Mukawa discloses in at least figure 8a, each of the two collimating elements (collimator optical system 112 fig. 8A) being moveably attached to an adjustment mechanism (the collimator optical system 112 is placed in a movement guiding unit 42 paragraph [0158]) to an adjustment mechanism (movement guiding unit 42 fig. 8A) that is supportable on (the movement guiding unit 42 is supportable on movement device 40 fig. 8A ) the frame (movement device 40 fig. 8A) to enable each of the two collimating elements (collimator optical system 112 fig. 8A) to be moved (a movement device 40 that relatively moves an optical axis of an optical system 112 in a horizontal direction paragraph [0157]) while the single waveguide (light guide 120 fig. 8A single waveguide taught above by Miller) is stationary (the light guide 120 is stationary while the collimator optical system 112 is moved from a first position as shown below in fig. 8A to a second position as shown below in fig. 8B).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use movable optical elements supportable on the frame as taught by Mukawa in the exit pupil expander of Miller. An observer 20 can view the image that is naturally displayed by the image displaying device without modifying or changing the focus much paragraph [0160]).
Further Sugiyama discloses in at least figure 15a, two collimating elements (condenser lens 1503 fig. 15a, collimating elements taught above by Mukawa), one for each of the eyes of the user (eye as shown below in fig. 15a), coupled to the single waveguide (optical system 1501 fig. 15a, single waveguide taught above by Miller), to ensure formation of exit pupil outputs (exit pupil as shown below in fig. 15a) for a given field-of-view such that the exit pupils' outputs are aligned to (exit pupil as shown below in fig. 15a) each of the eyes of the user (eye as shown below in fig. 15a), respectively, one of the two collimating elements (condenser lens 1503 fig. 15a, collimating elements taught above by Mukawa) configured to receive light forming the image (the condenser lens 1503 receives image light from display panel 1502 fig. 15a) and deliver the light to the input region (the condenser lens 1503 delivers the light into the input region as shown below in fig. 15a) of the single waveguide (optical system 1501 fig. 15a, single waveguide taught above by Miller) over an input area (input area as shown below in fig. 15a) of the single waveguide (optical system 1501 fig. 15a, single waveguide taught above by Miller) such that the light is to leave the output region (output region as shown below in fig. 15a) of the single waveguide (optical system 1501 fig. 15a, single waveguide taught above by Miller) over an output area (output area as shown below in fig. 15a) of the single waveguide (optical system 1501 fig. 15a, single waveguide taught above by Miller),
each of the two collimating elements (condenser lens 1503 fig. 15a, collimating elements taught above by Mukawa) being moved (the condenser lens 1503 which are moved together relative to the combiner optical system 1501 paragraph [0009]) from a respective first position (first position as shown below in fig. 15a) that overlaps (the first position overlaps the first portion as shown below in fig. 15a) a respective first portion (first portion as shown below in fig. 15a) of the single waveguide (optical system 1501 fig. 15a, single waveguide taught above by Miller) to a respective second position (second position as shown below in fig. 15a) that overlaps (the second position overlaps the second portion as shown below in fig. 15a) a respective second portion (second portion as shown below in fig. 15) of the single waveguide (optical system 1501 fig. 15a, single waveguide taught above by Miller) respectively in line with (moving distance of the position of the exit pupil L2 fig. 15a) each of the eyes of the user (eye as shown below in fig. 15a) in accordance with an IPD of the user (a small mechanical adjustment can produce a great effect of adjusting the interpupillary distance paragraph [0053] shown as L2 fig. 15a).
PNG
media_image4.png
749
1137
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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 with respect to the waveguide as taught by Sugihara in
the exit pupil expander of Miller. Moving the position of the display panel 1502 and the condenser lens 1503 moves the position of the exit pupil (paragraph [0010]).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Miller, Waldern, Mukawa and Sugihara, discloses all the
limitations of claim 20.
Miller does not disclose, wherein the two collimating elements include a display.
However Mukawa further discloses, wherein the two collimating element (collimator optical system 112 fig. 8A) includes (the optical system 112 of the image forming device 111 paragraph [0158] )a display (image forming devices 111A and 111B fig. 8A).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use movable collimating elements with displays supportable on the frame as taught by Mukawa in the exit pupil expander of Miller. Configuring an HMD by using the above-described image displaying device 100, a miniaturized, lightweight device can be realized (paragraph [0003]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al (US 10345519 B1) in view of Waldern et al. (US 20190212699 A1), Mukawa (US 20120032874 A1) and Sugihara (US 20130182334 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Alexander (GB 2559605 A).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Miller, Waldern, Mukawa and Sugihara discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Miller 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 Miller. The control means adjusts the positions the eye box to include the users
eyes (pg. 11 para. 4).
Claims 9, 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al (US 10345519 B1) in view of Waldern et al. (US 20190212699 A1), Mukawa (US 20120032874 A1) and Sugihara (US 20130182334 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view Lee et al. (US
20210063754 A1).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Miller, Waldern, Mukawa and Sugihara discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Miller 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 Miller. 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 Miller, Waldern, Mukawa and Sugihara discloses all the
limitations of claim 1.
Miller 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 Miller. The light emitting unit only needs to be active in the IPD position being used.
(paragraph [0331]).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Miller, Waldern, Mukawa and Sugihara 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]).
Claims 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al (US 10345519 B1) in view of Waldern et al. (US 20190212699 A1), Mukawa (US 20120032874 A1) and Sugihara (US 20130182334 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Chow et al. (US 20160223820 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Miller, Waldern, Mukawa and Sugihara discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Miller does not explicitly disclose, wherein the optical element is adapted to be angularly
displaceable to create a wider field of view for display.
However Chow disclose in at least figure 12, wherein the optical element (exit window 13 fig. 12) is adapted to be angularly displaceable (optical axis tilt fig. 12) to create a wider field of view for display (the optics 14 of the display module 12 can be fixed to or relative to the front frame portion 18a, and tilting the front frame portion 18a relative to the side frame portions 26 can have the effect of tilting the optical axis A of the display optics 14 towards the user's eyeball 8, such as upwardly or downwardly paragraph [0039).
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 exit pupil expander of
Miller. The light from the optical element can be tilted to be in better view of the user.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Miller, Waldern, Mukawa and Sugihara discloses all the
limitations of claim 1.
Miller does not explicitly disclose, wherein the adjustment mechanism comprises a tilting
mechanism to change an 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 an 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 exit pupil expander of
Miller. 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 Miller et al (US 10345519 B1) in view of Waldern et al. (US 20190212699 A1), Mukawa (US 20120032874 A1) and Sugihara (US 20130182334 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Suzuki (US 20190353897 A1).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Miller, Waldern, Mukawa and Sugihara discloses all the
limitations of claim 1.
Miller 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 Miller. 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 Miller et al (US 10345519 B1) in view of Waldern et al. (US 20190212699 A1), Mukawa (US 20120032874 A1), Sugihara (US 20130182334 A1) and Suzuki (US 20190353897 A1) as applied to claim 11 above and in further view of Lang (US 20190333480 A1).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Miller, Waldern, Mukawa and Suzuki discloses all the limitations of claim 11.
Miller 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 Miller. Using saved positions helps save time by not needing to reregister the positions
paragraph [0273] ).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al (US 10345519 B1) in view of Waldern et al. (US 20190212699 A1), Mukawa (US 20120032874 A1), Sugihara (US 20130182334 A1) as applied to claim 20 above and in view of Alexander (GB 2559605 A).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Miller, Waldern, Mukawa and Sugihara discloses all the limitations of claim 20.
Miller 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 in
the exit pupil expander of Miller. The control means adjusts the positions the eye box to include the
users eyes (pg. 11 para. 4).
Claims 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al (US 10345519 B1) in view of Waldern et al. (US 20190212699 A1), Mukawa (US 20120032874 A1), Sugihara (US 20130182334 A1) as applied to claim 20 above and in further view of Chow (US 20160223820 A1).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Miller, Waldern, Mukawa and Sugihara, discloses all the
limitations of claim 20.
Miller 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 exit pupil expander of Miller. The light from the optical element can be tilted to be in better
view of the user.
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Miller, Waldern, Mukawa and Sugihara, discloses all the
limitations of claim 20.
Miller 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 exit pupil expander of
Miller. 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 Miller et al (US 10345519 B1) in view of Waldern et al. (US 20190212699 A1), Mukawa (US 20120032874 A1), Sugihara (US 20130182334 A1) as applied to claim 20 above and in further view of Suzuki (US 20190353897 A1).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Miller, Waldern, Mukawa and Sugihara, discloses all the
Miller 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 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 exit pupil expander of
Miller. 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 Miller et al (US 10345519 B1) in view of Waldern et al. (US 20190212699 A1), Mukawa (US 20120032874 A1), Sugihara (US 20130182334 A1) as applied to claim 20 above and in further view of Lang (US 20190333480 A1).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Miller, Waldern, Mukawa and Sugihara, discloses all the
limitations of claim 20.
Miller 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 exit pupil
expander of Miller. 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.
Simmonds (US 20180146188 A1) discloses a display with waveguides and convergence lens that are collimating.
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
/WILLIAM R ALEXANDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights