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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 (and thus 2-4 and 6-11, and 13-15) 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danziger (US 20190212487 A1) in view of Eisenfeld (US 20200200963 A1).
Re Claim 1, Danzinger discloses, on Fig. 2, 5, 7, 9, and 12A-12D, a head mounted display that displays image in the user's field of vision, comprising; a video display unit that generates the image to be displayed (source 4 can be an LCD or OLED), a first waveguide (Fig 5 which can be arranged in place of LOE 20A in Fig. 7; also see Fig. 12A-12d, waveguide 10 ) [Par 70] and a second waveguide (Fig. 2 which can replace LOE 20B in Fig. 7, with waveguide also labeled 20) [Par 70] that duplicate the video light from the video display unit, and each of the first waveguide and the second waveguide includes a pair of parallel main planes ( lower and upper major surfaces 26 and 26A which are present in Fig. 2 and 5) [Par 58] that confine video light by internal reflection, the first waveguide includes an incident surface that reflects video light into the inside (reflecting surface 16 in Fig. 5) and two or more outgoing reflective surfaces that emit video light into the second waveguide (Fig. 5: reflecting surfaces 46 and 22), and the second waveguide includes an input unit that couples video light from the first waveguide to the inside (Fig. 2: region of 26a where input waves 38, 18A, and 18B enter waveguide 20) [Par 86] and an output unit (Fig. 2: reflecting surfaces 22) that emits video light to the user's pupil (eye 24), and the output unit being a group of outgoing reflective surfaces including two or more outgoing reflective surfaces (Fig. 2, 5, 7, and 9: reflecting surfaces 22) [Par 60] wherein the incident reflective surfaces and the group of outgoing reflective surfaces are parallel to each other (Fig. 2 and 5: surfaces 16 and 22 are parallel) and at different angles from the main planes (Fig. 2 and 5: surfaces 16 and 22 both have angles differing from the angles of major surfaces 26 and 26a).
But the embodiments Danzinger does not explicitly disclose, the input unit of the second waveguide being a plurality of incident reflective surfaces, and the output unit being a group of outgoing reflective surfaces including two or more outgoing reflective surfaces, wherein each of the incident reflective surfaces and the group of outgoing reflective surfaces are parallel to each other and at different angles from the main planes, wherein an angle between the duplication direction of video light in the first waveguide and a duplication direction of video light in the second waveguide is less than 90°, and the duplication direction of video light in the second waveguide is a direction inclined with respect to the end surface of the second waveguide, and the input unit of the second waveguide being a plurality of incident reflective surfaces.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Eisenfeld teaches, on Fig. 2F, 3B and 6B, that it is desirable in wave guides to include wherein, the input unit of the second waveguide being a three or more incident reflective surfaces (See Fig. 2F: where at least three partially reflective surfaces 19 also serve as incident surfaces) [Par 63], and the output unit (partially reflecting surfaces 19) being a group of outgoing reflective surfaces (partially reflecting surfaces 19 reflect light out of second waveguide 18) [Par 49-50] including two or more outgoing reflective surfaces (there are more than two of the surfaces 19), wherein each of the three or more incident reflective surfaces and the group of outgoing reflective surfaces are parallel to each other (Fig. 6B: initial surfaces 19 serve as both incident surfaces and output surfaces, whole surfaces 19 lower in region 18 serve as only output surfaces, see Fig. 3B and 2F for example of this, and all surfaces 19 are parallel) [Par 71-72] at different angles from the main planes (surfaces 19 are the same angle as the main planes 24) [Par 71-72], each of the three or more incident reflection surfaces have a film with polarization characteristics (at least three partially reflective surfaces 19, “The second set of partially-reflecting surfaces 19 are at an oblique angle to the major external surfaces 24 so that a part of image illumination propagating within the LOE 12 by internal reflection at the major external surfaces from the first region 16 into the second region 18 is coupled out of the LOE towards an eye-motion box 26.”, thus describing polarization by reflectance in partially reflective surfaces) [Par 49] , and are films with different reflectances (See Fig. 2F where each surface 19 transmits and reflects different light components) [Par 49-51].
wherein an angle between the duplication direction of video light in the first waveguide (positive x inverse normal to surfaces 17 in region 12) and a duplication direction of video light in the second waveguide (angled direction that is primarily in the positive Y direction but partially in the positive X direction, inverse normal to surfaces 19) is less than 90° (See Fig. 6B wherein the angle between the inverse normal direction of surfaces 17 and 19 is less than a 90°), and the duplication direction of video light in the second waveguide (inverse normal of surface 19) is a direction inclined with respect to the end surface of the second waveguide (See Fig, 6B: inverse normal of surface 19 is inclined with respect to the end surface of region 18), and the input unit of the second waveguide being a plurality of incident reflective surfaces (initial partially reflective surfaces 19 that are in the most negative Y direction are the input surfaces of region 18, See Fig. 3B and 2F) [Par 63].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Danzier with Eisenfeld in order to provide, a horizontally displaced eyebox as taught by Eisenfeld [Par 72].
Re Claim 2, Danzinger in view of Eizenfeld teaches, the head mounted display according to claim 1, and Danzinger further discloses on Fig. 5, wherein the incident surface and the outgoing reflective surfaces of the first waveguide are parallel to each other (incident surface 16 and reflecting surfaces 46 and 22 are parallel) and at different angles from the main planes (different angles from main planes of waveguide 20).
Re Claim 3, Danzinger in view of Eizenfeld teaches, the head mounted display according to claim 1, and Danzinger further teaches, wherein the output unit of the second waveguide is two or more partial reflective mirrors (Fig. 2: partial reflectors 22), and the same reflective film is formed on the two or more partial reflective mirrors [Par 64].
Re Claim 4, Danzinger in view of Eizenfeld teaches, the head mounted display according to claim 1, and Danzinger further discloses on Fig. 2, 3a-3B and 2F, and 4, wherein the outgoing reflective surface of the first waveguide (Fig. 4 is an alternative first waveguide, with reflectors 46 and 22) and the output unit of the second waveguide (Fig. 2: reflectors 22) are partial reflective mirrors [Par 64], there is a first incident angle range in which video light of a predetermined angle of view enters and exits the partial reflective mirror normally (Fig. 3a), and a second incident angle range in which video light enters the partial reflective mirror from the back surface (Fig. 3B and 2F), the first incident angle range is smaller than the second incident angle range (angle of light 32 is smaller than angle of light 36), and there is a portion higher than the reflectance of the first incident angle range, in the reflectance region of the high angle side from the center of the second incident angle range (Fig. 2 and 4).
Re Claim 6, Danzinger in view of Eizenfeld teaches, the head mounted display according to claim 1, and Danzinger further discloses on Fig. 8, wherein the angle between the array direction of the outgoing reflective surfaces of the first waveguide ( array of reflective surfaces 22a ) and the array direction of the outgoing reflective surfaces of the second waveguide (array of reflective surfaces 22b) is less than 90°.
Re Claim 7, Danzinger in view of Eizenfeld teaches, the head mounted display according to claim 1.
But Danzinger does not explicitly disclose wherein, the reflectance of the outgoing reflective surface of the first waveguide is higher the farther it is from the incident surface, and the reflective surfaces spacing of the outgoing reflective surfaces of the first waveguide and the reflective surfaces spacing of the outgoing reflective surfaces of the second waveguide are smaller than the aperture diameter of the projection unit that projects video light from the video display unit onto the first waveguide.
However, Danzinger teaches, on Fig. 2, 5, and 6, the reflectance of the outgoing reflective surface (surfaces 22) of the first waveguide (look to Fig. 2 for the first waveguide and Fig. 5 as another waveguide configuration for increasing reflectance) is controlled (Reflected surfaces 22 gradual couple light out of the waveguide, and explicitly control reflectivity, see Fig. 19B) [Par 60-61 and 64], and the reflective surfaces spacing of the outgoing reflective surfaces of the first waveguide and the reflective surfaces spacing of the outgoing reflective surfaces of the second waveguide are smaller than the aperture diameter of the projection unit that projects video light from the video display unit onto the first waveguide (See Fig. 6, source 4 necessarily requires a larger than the spacing between surfaces 22L or surfaces 22R). Thus, Danzinger indicates the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art to control the amount of reflectance of the reflective surfaces, such that it gradually increases along its optical path and wherein the spacing between surfaces in the first waveguide is less than the diameter of the aperture. Further one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do this in order to gradually couple all the light from the first waveguide [Par 64 and provided light to both side of the first waveguide, thus expanding the image laterally (Fig. 6) [Par 70].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Danzinger in view of Eizenfeld, in order to gradually couple the light of the first waveguide, and expand the image laterally, as taught by Danzinger.
Re Claim 8, Danzinger in view of Eizenfeld teaches, the head mounted display according to claim 1, and Danzinger further discloses on Fig. 17a-17D, wherein an array spacing of the outgoing reflective surfaces located closer to the incident surface is narrower than an array spacing of the outgoing reflective surfaces located in a center part of the first waveguide (the spacing between reflective surfaces can be monotomic in either direction, such as in Fig. 17B and 17C) [Par 137].
Re Claim 9, Danzinger in view of Eizenfeld teaches, the head mounted display according to claim 1, and Danzinger further discloses on Fig. 2, 5, and 7-8, wherein the main planes of the first waveguide ( Fig. 5, usually labeled 26 and 26a, but unlabeled in this figure) and the main planes of the second waveguide are parallel (Fig. 2: 26 and 26a), the main planes of the first waveguide and the main planes of the second waveguide are in different planes (See Fig. 7-8), and the main planes of the first waveguide are positioned closer to the projection unit that projects video light from the video display unit onto the first waveguide than the main planes of the second waveguide ( see Fig. 7-8 : input wave 90 is closer to the first waveguide and its planes, also see Fig. 4 and 6 for images where the source 4 is present and closer to the main planes of the first waveguide).
Re Claim 10, Danzinger in view of Eizenfeld teaches, the head mounted display according to claim 1,
But Danzinger in view of Eizenfeld does not explicitly disclose, wherein the tilt angle of the outgoing reflective surface relative to the main planes of the first and second waveguide is a predetermined angle θ, and the tilt angle θ is in the range of 16° to 40°.
Optimizing the tilt angle of the outgoing reflective surfaces, is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Danzinger teaches the adjustment of reflecting surfaces (Surfaces 22 in Fig. 2, 5, etc. are to be oblique and in Fig. 11A-C that the steepness or shallowness of the facets) [Par 61 and 80-83] as a variable which achieves a recognized result.
Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the tilt angle of the outgoing reflective surfaces (
α
s
u
r
l
) and identifies said sizes/ratios as result-effective variables. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the tilt angle of the outgoing reflective surfaces, since it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Re Claim 13, Danzinger in view of Eizenfeld teaches, the head mounted display according to claim 1, and Danzinger further teaches, wherein the input unit of the second waveguide (See Fig. 2; surface 16) is an incident transmissive surface (Fig. 2: surface 16 is partially transmissive) [Par 66], and the output unit is a group of outgoing reflective surfaces including two or more outgoing reflective surfaces (reflective surfaces 22), each of the incident transmissive surface and the group of outgoing reflective surfaces are parallel to each other and at a different angle from the main planes (Surfaces 22 and 16 are parallel and at a different angle than 26a and 26), and Eizenfeld teaches, on Fig. 6B, wherein the angle between the axis that the duplication direction of video light of the first waveguide (positive X direction of region 12) [Par 71] projected on the main planes of the second waveguide (Region 18) and the duplication direction of video light of the second waveguide is less than 90° (See Where Fig. 6B shows the second duplication direction as primarily negative Y direction with a small amount of negative X direction, thus the angle is less than 90 °) [Par 71-72] .
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danzinger in view of Eizenfeld as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kobayashi (US 20180176547 A1).
Re Claim 14, Danzinger in view of Eizenfeld teaches, the head mounted display according to claim 1, and Danzinger further discloses on Fig. 9, further comprising; an electric power supply unit that supply electricity (supply 116).
But Danzinger does not explicitly disclose, a sensing unit that detects the user's position and posture, an audio processing unit that inputs or outputs audio signals, and a control unit that controls the electric power supply unit, the sensing unit, and the audio processing unit.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Kobayashi teaches, on Fig. 5, that it is desirable in heads up displays for a sensing unit that detects the user's position and posture (sensor 151 detects head position and movement) [Par 158], an audio processing unit that inputs or outputs audio signals (microphone 327 and speaker 329) [Par 175], and a control unit (operating system 150) that controls the electric power supply unit, the sensing unit, and the audio processing unit [Par 150].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Danzinger with Kobayashi in order to provide detecting position and motion of the user’s head and output voice, as taught by Kobayashi [Par 158 and 177].
Re Claim 15, Danzinger in view of Eizenfeld teaches, the head mounted display according to claim 1, and Danzinger further discloses on Fig. 5, further comprising an electric power supply unit that supply electricity (supply 116).
But does not explicitly disclose, an acceleration sensor that detects the movement of the user's head, a head tracking unit that changes the displayed content in response to the user's head movements, an audio processing unit that inputs or outputs audio signals, and a control unit controls the acceleration sensor, the head tracking unit, the electric power supply unit, and the audio processing unit.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Kobayashi teaches, on Fig. 5, that it is desirable in heads up displays to include, an acceleration sensor (three axis acceleration sensor) [Par 113] that detects the movement of the user's head, a head tracking unit (sensor 151 detects head position and movement) [Par 158] that changes the displayed content in response to the user's head movements [Par 123], an audio processing unit that inputs or outputs audio signals (microphone 327 and speaker 329) [Par 175], and a control unit controls the acceleration sensor, the head tracking unit, the electric power supply unit, and the audio processing unit (operating system 150) [Par 150].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Danzinger with Kobayashi in order to provide detecting position and motion of the user’s head and output voice, as taught by Kobayashi [Par 158 and 177].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nakamura (US 20200150332 A1) teaches a similar heads up display.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAY ALEXANDER DEAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571)-272-2713. 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.
/RAY ALEXANDER DEAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights