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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/13/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Danziger would not be capable of arriving at the missing limitation of, “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 that Danziger outright does not teach, “the input unit of the second waveguide being a plurality of incident reflective surfaces”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Fig. 6 Danzinger specifically teaches a waveguide including a plurality of incident reflective surfaces (surfaces 16R and 16L), and teaches the motivation for doing so, as increasing the output aperture while maintain symmetry [Par 69]. In response to applicant’s argument that the motivation to modify the reference, such that “…the duplication direction of video light in the second waveguide is a direction inclined with respect to the end surface of the second waveguide.”, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Danzinger teaches the optimization or “geometric considerations” of the light beams and reflection angles (and by extension the duplication angle, see Fig. 12c-12d) [Par 94-95], providing the basis for one of ordinary skill the art to have the ability to optimize duplication direction, wherein one would be motivated to do so in order to prevent image quality degradation [Par 91].
Therefore, the rejection of Claim 1-11, and 13-15 are restated in light of the amendments.
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, 6-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danziger (US 20190212487 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 on Fig. 2, 5, 7, 9, and 12A-12D, of Danzinger do not explicitly disclose, 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, the embodiment on Fig. 6 of Danzinger, teaches exit pupil expansion the input unit of a waveguide being a plurality of incident reflective surfaces (reflective surfaces 16L and 16R) [Par 69]. Thus Danzinger and the prior art as a whole explicitly teaches the use of waveguides comprising a plurality of incident reflective surfaces, and Danzinger teaches the use of a secondary waveguide (Fig. 2 and 7: waveguide 20 and LOE 20b) [Par 70]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of simply using the plurality of incident reflective surfaces present in Fig. 6 of Danzinger, in the secondary waveguides present in Fig. 2 and 7. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to create a symmetrically enlarged output aperture system [Par 69].
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 order to provide create a symmetrically enlarged output aperture system [Par 69].
But modified Danginzer does not explicitly disclose, 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.
Optimizing duplication direction in a waveguide 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 dis-cover 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 on Fig. 12A-12D (the coupling of light between waveguides with reflection surfaces at oblique or steep angles, with specific focus on multiplication directions) [Par 86, 90, 94] as a variable which achieves a recognized result. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the duplication (or multiplication) directions and angles, 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 Danzinger, such that the claimed expression is satisfied, since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Re Claim 2, modified Danzinger discloses, the head mounted display according to claim 1, and 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, modified Danzinger discloses, the head mounted display according to claim 1, 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, modified Danzinger discloses, the head mounted display according to claim 1, and further discloses on Fig. 2, 3a-3b, 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), 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, modified Danzinger discloses, 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, modified Danzinger discloses, 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 order to gradually couple the light of the first waveguide, and expand the image laterally, as taught by Danzinger.
Re Claim 8, modified Danzinger discloses, the head mounted display according to claim 1, and 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, modified Danzinger discloses, the head mounted display according to claim 1, and 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, modified Danzinger discloses, the head mounted display according to claim 1,
But Danzinger 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 11, modified Danzinger discloses, the head mounted display according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of incident reflective surfaces of the input unit of the second waveguide (Fig. 6: partially reflective surface 16L and 16R) [Par 69] has a film with polarization characteristics (partial reflective surfaces can use polarization) [Par 62].
Re Claim 13, modified Danzinger discloses, the head mounted display according to claim 1, 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).
But Danzinger does not explicitly disclose, the angle between the axis that the duplication direction of video light of the first waveguide projected on the main planes of the second waveguide and the duplication direction of video light of the second waveguide is less than 90°.
Optimizing duplication direction in a waveguide 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 dis-cover 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 on Fig. 12A-12D (the coupling of light between waveguides with reflection surfaces at oblique or steep angles, with specific focus on multiplication directions ) [Par 86, 90, 94] as a variable which achieves a recognized result. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the duplication (or multiplication) directions and angles, 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 Danzinger, such that the claimed expression is satisfied, since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Claim(s) 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danzinger in view of Kobayashi (US 20180176547 A1).
Re Claim 14, modified Danzinger discloses, 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, modified Danzinger discloses, 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.
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