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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 01/30/2026 are acknowledged and accepted. Claims 1 and 3 are amended, Claim 2 is canceled/withdrawn, and Claims 1-8 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 7 paragraph 2 of the Remarks, Applicant asserts that the Toti reference fails to cure the deficiencies of Kreipe and Bradski.
On page 7 paragraphs 3-4 of the Remarks, Applicant provides an overview of the different components as shown in Fig. 13 of Toti. Applicant then asserts that the hinge member 10 of Toti “connect[s] the slats and are neither springs nor transition slants as disclosed and claimed.” However, the Office notes that the language of amended Claim 1 does not preclude the use of a hinge as the slat connection mechanism. Furthermore, the specification does not explicitly set out a definition of the ‘transition slant.’ When interpreted under BRI, a transition slant is interpreted to be any component used as a connector between two other components. Similarly, there is broad scope of interpretation attached to the element ‘one-piece spring’ and its use in the instant application.
The claim language is as follows: “wherein the one-piece spring has a first plane and a second plane, which are connected to one another by transition slants so that the first plane and second plane are movable with respect to each other.” Toti teaches to a configuration such that the one-piece spring (16) has a first plane and a second plane (planes of adjacent units 41), which are connected to one another by transition slants (see Fig. 13 in which planes 41 are connected to one another by transition slants 15). When the above limitation is interpreted using the broadest reasonable interpretation, the configuration of Toti anticipates the limitation of amended claim 1.
On page 8 paragraph 2 of the Remarks, Applicant asserts that the elongated body 41 of Toti does not have a first plane and a second plane which are connected by transition slants. The Office disagrees with this assertion. An annotated version of Fig. 13 of Toti is provided below in order to clarify the Offices interpretation of the Toti reference. If two separate components of 41 are treated as the first plane and the second plane, than the planes are connected by transition slants 15. Therefore, the limitation is anticipated.
On page 8 paragraph 2 of the Remarks, Applicant asserts that the two elongated bodies 41 are not movable with respect to each other. The Office disagrees with this assertion. It is clear from Fig. 12 and 13 of Toti that the trollies 115 allow the elongated bodies 41 to move relative to each other when the slats 15 are transitioned. Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 is maintained and the limitation is rejection.
PNG
media_image1.png
392
604
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: Annotated Fig. 13 of Toti
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/07/2026 and 01/23/2026 are being considered by the examiner.
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 following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kreipe (DE 10 2018 213 061 A1), previously cited, and further in view of Bradski (US 20150178939 A1), previously cited, and Toti (US 6223804 B1), previously cited.
Regarding claim 1, Kreipe teaches in Fig. 5: a device for generating a virtual image (“VB”; Fig. 5), comprising:
a display element (100; Fig. 5) for generating an image;
an optical waveguide (“optical waveguide 5”; [0030], Fig. 5) for expanding an exit pupil (“an optical waveguide for widening an exit pupil”; [0010]); and
an anti-glare element (“light direction selector 97”; [0033], Fig. 5) arranged downstream of the optical waveguide (5) in the beam path having at least one one-piece spring (971, Fig. 5) …
wherein the anti-glare element (97) is a shutter which has a plurality of slats (“light direction selector 97 is shown here consisting of many inclined slats 971”; [0033], Fig. 5).
Kreipe fails to explicitly teach: wherein the one-piece spring has a first plane and a second plane, which are connected to one another by transition slants so that the first plane and second plane are movable with respect to each other … wherein the slats come to rest in each case on a transition slant of the at least one one-piece spring.
However, in a related invention in the field of virtual and augmented reality systems, Bradski teaches to a configuration such that “One embodiment may comprise an array of directionally-selective occlusion elements, such as a MEMS device featuring a set of louvers that can change rotation such that they pass the majority of light that is coming from a particular angle, but are presenting more of a broad face to light that is coming from a different angle (somewhat akin to the manner in which plantation shutters may be utilized with a typical human scale window). The MEMS/louvers configuration may be placed upon an optically transparent substrate, with the louvers substantially opaque. Ideally such a configuration would have a louver pitch fine enough to selectably occlude light on a pixel-by-pixel basis. In another embodiment, two or more layers or stacks of louvers may be combined to provide yet further controls. In another embodiment, rather than selectively blocking light, the louvers may be polarizers configured to change the polarization state of light on a controllably variable basis” (Bradski, [0195]). Although Bradski does not provide additional detail or a corresponding figure to the idea of paragraph [0195], the reference establishes the connection that MEMs sized louver systems act similarly to plantation shutters (thus also venetian blinds) and can be used in augmented or virtual reality displays. Thus, Bradski provides support that the structure of macro-sized blinds may be used in micro sized devices.
Furthermore, in a related invention in the field of hinge mechanisms for a window cover, Toti teaches in Figs. 12-13: the one-piece spring (16) has a first plane (41, see annotated Figure 1) and a second plane (41, see annotated Figure 1) which are connected to one another by transition slants (15) (see Fig. 13 in which planes 41 are connected to one another by transition slants 15) so that the first plane and the second plane are movable with respect to each other (see the trollies 115 which allow the planes to be movable with respect to each other) … the slats (“vertical slats 15”; col 5 line 16) come to rest in each case on a transition slant (“bodies 41”; col 8 line 63) of the at least one one-piece spring (“blind 113”; col 8 line 66) (see figures 12-13 in which each slat 15 is joined by the transition slant 41).
Furthermore, Toti teaches this configuration such that the device consists of “an array of vertically oriented slats suspended from the carriers for opening and closing traversing movement along the traverse track” (Toti, col 2 lines 29-31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kreipe to incorporate the teachings of Bradski and Toti to provide a device in which the slats come to rest in each case on a transition slant of the at least one one-piece spring, for the purpose of providing a mechanism capable of angular adjustment (Toti, col 2 lines 29-31).
Regarding claim 3, Kreipe, Bradski, and Toti teach the device as claimed in claim 1. Kreipe fails to explicitly teach: having at least two parallel rows of transition slants which are arranged offset from one another.
However, Toti teaches: having at least two parallel rows of transition slants (41) which are arranged offset from one another (if planes of adjacent components 41 (see annotated Figure 1 abouve) are taken to be the transition slants then the plurality of transition slants as depicted in Fig. 13 would result in a plurality of parallel transition slants offset from one another).
Furthermore, Toti teaches this slatted element such that it is “the slats 15 are joined by alternating hinges 8 and 48 formed along the vertical length of the slats 15” (Toti, col 8 lines 50-52). Furthermore, hinges 48 are made integral with planes 40 in order to connect the slats 15 as depicted in Fig. 13.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kreipe to incorporate the teachings of Toti to provide a device comprising at least two parallel rows of transition slants which are arranged offset from one another, for the purpose of a joining the slants to the planes (Toti, col 8 lines 50-52).
Regarding claim 6, Kreipe, Bradski, and Toti teach the device as claimed in claim 1. Kreipe fails to teach: a plurality of springs are nested in one another or arranged next to one another.
However, Bradski teaches: a plurality of springs are nested in one another or arranged next to one another (“One embodiment may comprise an array of directionally-selective occlusion elements, such as a MEMS device featuring a set of louvers that can change rotation such that they pass the majority of light that is coming from a particular angle, but are presenting more of a broad face to light that is coming from a different angle (somewhat akin to the manner in which plantation shutters may be utilized with a typical human scale window). The MEMS/louvers configuration may be placed upon an optically transparent substrate, with the louvers substantially opaque. Ideally such a configuration would have a louver pitch fine enough to selectably occlude light on a pixel-by-pixel basis. In another embodiment, two or more layers or stacks of louvers may be combined to provide yet further controls. In another embodiment, rather than selectively blocking light, the louvers may be polarizers configured to change the polarization state of light on a controllably variable basis”; [0195]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kreipe to incorporate the teachings of Bradski to provide a device in which a plurality of springs are nested in one another or arranged next to one another, for the purpose of changing the polarization state of light on a controllably variable basis (Bradski, [0195]).
Regarding claim 7, Kreipe, Bradski, and Toti teach the device as claimed in claim 1. Kreipe fails to teach explicitly teach the device wherein the slats have a variably settable setting angle.
However, Bradski teaches: the slats have a variably settable setting angle (““One embodiment may comprise an array of directionally-selective occlusion elements, such as a MEMS device featuring a set of louvers that can change rotation such that they pass the majority of light that is coming from a particular angle, but are presenting more of a broad face to light that is coming from a different angle (somewhat akin to the manner in which plantation shutters may be utilized with a typical human scale window)”; [0195]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kreipe to incorporate the teachings of Bradski to provide a device in which the slats have a variably settable setting angle, for the purpose of optimizing the light that exits the slats (Bradski, [0195]).
Regarding claim 8, Kreipe, Bradski, and Toti teach the device as claimed in claim 1. Kreipe fails to exility teach: wherein the slats come to rest in each case on a transition slant of the at least one one-piece spring.
However, in a related invention in the field of virtual and augmented reality systems, Bradski teaches to a configuration such that “One embodiment may comprise an array of directionally-selective occlusion elements, such as a MEMS device featuring a set of louvers that can change rotation such that they pass the majority of light that is coming from a particular angle, but are presenting more of a broad face to light that is coming from a different angle (somewhat akin to the manner in which plantation shutters may be utilized with a typical human scale window). The MEMS/louvers configuration may be placed upon an optically transparent substrate, with the louvers substantially opaque. Ideally such a configuration would have a louver pitch fine enough to selectably occlude light on a pixel-by-pixel basis. In another embodiment, two or more layers or stacks of louvers may be combined to provide yet further controls. In another embodiment, rather than selectively blocking light, the louvers may be polarizers configured to change the polarization state of light on a controllably variable basis” (Bradski, [0195]). Although Bradski does not provide additional detail or a corresponding figure to the idea of paragraph [0195], the reference establishes the connection that MEMs sized louver systems act similarly to plantation shutters (thus also venetian blinds) and can be used in augmented or virtual reality displays. Thus, Bradski provides support that the structure of macro-sized blinds may be used in micro-sized devices.
Furthermore, in a related invention in the field of hinge mechanisms for a window cover, Toti teaches in Figs. 12-13: the slats (“vertical slats 15”; col 5 line 16) come to rest in each case on a transition slant (“bodies 41”; col 8 line 63) of the at least one one-piece spring (“blind 113”; col 8 line 66) (see figures 12-13 in which each slat 15 is joined by the transition slant 41).
Furthermore, Toti teaches this configuration such that the device consists of “an array of vertically oriented slats suspended from the carriers for opening and closing traversing movement along the traverse track” (Toti, col 2 lines 29-31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kreipe to incorporate the teachings of Bradski and Toti to provide a device in which the slats come to rest in each case on a transition slant of the at least one one-piece spring, for the purpose of providing mechanism capable and angular adjustment (Toti, col 2 lines 29-31).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kreipe (DE 10 2018 213 061 A1), as cited in the IDS, and of Bradski (US 20150178939 A1) and Toti (US 6223804 B1), and further in view of Meyer Timmerman Thijssen (US 20200144109 A1), hereinafter Meyer, previously presented.
Regarding claim 5, Kreipe, Bradski, and Toti teach the device as claimed in claim 1. Kreipe, Bradski, and Toti fail to teach: the transition slants of the one-piece spring have different lengths.
However, in an invention in the related field of gratings, Meyer teaches: the transition slants of the one-piece spring have different lengths (“slanted gratings are etched in target materials using an ion beam that can accommodate a range of angles to form gratings of different slant angles and with differing depth gradients”; [0024], “multiple gratings can be formed on a single substrate at different slant angles and at different depth gradients”; [0048], {see Fig. 5H-5J where it is clear that the plurality of fins 526 have different lengths}).
Furthermore, Meyer teaches the grating such that “a waveguide combiner may include gratings with different slant angles to adequately control the in-coupling and out-coupling of light, and the slant angles may be at angles different than the grating vector” (Meyer, [0005]). Additionally, “[t]he modulation of grating depth increases optical uniformity in optical devices such as waveguide combiners” (Meyer, [0024]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kreipe, Bradski, and Toti to incorporate the teachings of Meyer to provide a device in which the slats are different lengths, for the purpose of adequately controlling the optical uniformity (Meyer, [0005] and [0024]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 4, the closest prior art, Kreipe, teaches in Fig. 5: a device for generating a virtual image (“VB”; Fig. 5), comprising:
a display element (100; Fig. 5) for generating an image;
an optical waveguide (“optical waveguide 5”; [0030], Fig. 5) for expanding an exit pupil (“an optical waveguide for widening an exit pupil”; [0010]); and
an anti-glare element (“light direction selector 97”; [0033], Fig. 5) arranged downstream of the optical waveguide (5) in the beam path,
wherein the anti-glare element (97) is a shutter which has a plurality of slats (“light direction selector 97 is shown here consisting of many inclined slats 971”; [0033], Fig. 5).
Kreipe fails to explicitly teach: wherein the slats come to rest in each case on a transition slant of the at least one one-piece spring, wherein the transition slant in its transition region to at least one of the first plane and the second plane has a perforation, groove or peripheral cutout.
However, in a related invention in the field of virtual and augmented reality systems, Bradski teaches to a configuration such that “One embodiment may comprise an array of directionally-selective occlusion elements, such as a MEMS device featuring a set of louvers that can change rotation such that they pass the majority of light that is coming from a particular angle, but are presenting more of a broad face to light that is coming from a different angle (somewhat akin to the manner in which plantation shutters may be utilized with a typical human scale window). The MEMS/louvers configuration may be placed upon an optically transparent substrate, with the louvers substantially opaque. Ideally such a configuration would have a louver pitch fine enough to selectably occlude light on a pixel-by-pixel basis. In another embodiment, two or more layers or stacks of louvers may be combined to provide yet further controls. In another embodiment, rather than selectively blocking light, the louvers may be polarizers configured to change the polarization state of light on a controllably variable basis” (Bradski, [0195]). Although Bradski does not provide additional detail or a corresponding figure to the idea of paragraph [0195], the reference establishes the connection that MEMs sized louver systems act similarly to plantation shutters (thus also venetian blinds) and can be used in augmented or virtual reality displays. Thus, Bradski provides support that the structure of macro-sized blinds may be used in micro sized devices.
Furthermore, in a related invention in the field of hinge mechanisms for a window cover, Toti teaches in Figs. 12-13: the slats (“vertical slats 15”; col 5 line 16) come to rest in each case on a transition slant (“bodies 41”; col 8 line 63) of the at least one one-piece spring (“blind 113”; col 8 line 66) (see figures 12-13 in which each slat 15 is joined by the transition slant 41).
Furthermore, Toti teaches this configuration such that the device consists of “an array of vertically oriented slats suspended from the carriers for opening and closing traversing movement along the traverse track” (Toti, col 2 lines 29-31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kreipe to incorporate the teachings of Bradski and Toti to provide a device in which the slats come to rest in each case on a transition slant of the at least one one-piece spring, for the purpose of providing a mechanism capable and angular adjustment (Toti, col 2 lines 29-31).
However, the prior art of record fails to explicitly teach: the transition slant in its transition region to at least one of the first plane and the second plane has a perforation, groove or peripheral cutout.
Based on the configuration of Kreipe it would be improper to modify Bradski and Toti to provide a device in which “the transition slant in its transition region to at least one of the first plane and the second plane has a perforation, groove or peripheral cutout.” Therefore, the combination of features is considered to be allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUBY L KAUFFMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1738. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am - 5pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Pham can be reached at (571) 272-3689. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RUBY L KAUFFMAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/THOMAS K PHAM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872