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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/23/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-12 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
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu (US 2019/0086673, of record) in view of Takagi (US 2021/0165216) and Gupta (US 2013/0250415)
Regarding claim 1, Shimizu discloses a microelectro-optical beam-guidance device, as best understood, (see Fig 1), comprising: at least one optical damping element (see Fig 1; Para [0053]; optical attenuator 20 and light reflector 30) which includes at least one optical filter (see Fig 1; Para [0053]; optical attenuator 20a with a light reflector 30) and at least two beam-guidance surfaces (see Fig 1; Para [0053]; a first surface understood to be the entrance surface of element 20a and a second surface understood to be the exit surface of 20b), the at least one optical filter being provided to reduce an intensity of a light beam passing through the optical damping element (see Fig 1; Para [0053]; optical attenuator 20a and light reflector 30 attenuate light which passes through optical attenuator 20), the at least two beam-guidance surfaces being disposed and/or formed in such a way that an intended entry vector (see annotated Fig 1; Para [0053]; entry vector is vector of light incident onto ISa surface) of the light beam into the optical damping element and an intended exit vector (see annotated Fig 1 below; Para [0053]; exit vector is vector of light leaving surface ESb) of the light beam out of the optical damping element are offset relative to each other as viewed along the intended entry vector (see annotated Fig 1 below; Para [0053]; as seen in annotated Fig 1 the entry vector is offset in the x and y directions with respect to the exit vector), wherein the at least two beam-guidance surfaces and the at least one optical filter are disposed and/or formed in such a way that portions of the light beam reflected at the at least one optical filter within the optical damping element have a reflection vector (see annotated Fig 1; Para [0053]; reflection vector is vector reflected from light reflected at reflector 30) upon exiting the optical damping element which is different from a vector antiparallel to the intended entry vector (see Fig 1; Para [0053]; as seen in annotated Fig 1 the light vector from reflected light of optical attenuator 20a and reflector 30 is reflected at an angle which is different from an angle antiparallel to the entry vector).
Shimizu does not disclose wherein the optical damping element includes two base bodies, each formed as a prism, and the at least one optical filter is disposed between the two base bodies. Shimizu and Takagi are related because both disclose optical systems in head-mounted displays
Takagi discloses an optical system in a head mounted display (see Fig 1) wherein the optical damping element includes two base bodies, each formed as a prism (see Fig 9; Para [0068-0069]; two wedge-shaped prisms 7q and 7p from base bodies)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Shimizu with wherein the optical damping element includes two base bodies, each formed as a prism of Takagi for the purpose of improving displayed image by allowing for image to be shifted (Para [0029-0030])
Shimizu in view of Takagi does not disclose wherein the at least one optical filter is disposed between the two base bodies. Shimizu in view of Takagi and Gupta are related because both disclose optical systems in head-mounted displays.
Gupta discloses an optical system in a head mounted display (see Fig 9) wherein the at least one optical filter is disposed between the two base bodies (see Fig 3A; Para [0029]; a polarizing coating which acts as optical filter is disposed between two prisms 102 and 110)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Shimizu in view of Takagi with wherein the at least one optical filter is disposed between the two base bodies of Gupta for the purpose of providing high contrast over a wide wavelength band (Para [0023])
PNG
media_image1.png
676
465
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Shimizu in view of Takagi and Gupta discloses the microelectro-optical beam-guidance device, as recited in claim 1 (see Fig 1). Shimizu further discloses wherein the at least one optical filter reduces the intensity of the light beam independently of wavelength (see Fig 1; Para [0053]; the first and second optical attenuators 20a and 20b are neutral density filters known in the art to reduce intensity of light independently of wavelength).
Regarding claim 3, Shimizu in view of Takagi and Gupta discloses the microelectro-optical beam-guidance device, recited in claim 1 (see Fig 1). Shimizu further discloses wherein the light beam is a laser beam (see Fig 1; Para [0053]; light is a laser beam derived from a laser source unit 10).
Regarding claim 4, Shimizu in view of Takagi and Gupta discloses the microelectro-optical beam-guidance device, as recited in claim 1 (see Fig 1). Shimizu further discloses wherein the at least two beam-guidance surfaces are each at least essentially flat and are aligned at least essentially parallel to one another (see Fig 1 and 16; Para [0053]; the first and second beam-guidance surface which are the first input surface of element 20a, ISa, and the first output surface of element 20b, ESb, are flat parallel filter structures).
Regarding claim 5, Shimizu in view of Takagi and Gupta discloses the microelectro-optical beam-guidance device, as recited in claim 1 (see Fig 1). Shimizu further discloses wherein the light beam passing through the optical damping element on an intended beam path has a propagation vector at one point of a surface of the at least one optical filter at which the light beam strikes the at least one optical filter (see Fig 2; Para [0053]; a propagation vector interpreted as the refracted light at the point of light incidence), the at least one optical filter and/or the at least two beam-guidance surfaces being disposed and/or formed in such a way that the propagation vector is inclined relative to a surface normal of the surface of the at least one optical filter (see Fig 2; Para [0053]; propagation vector is inclined relative to a normal of surface ISa as seen in Fig 2).
Regarding claim 6, Shimizu in view of Takagi and Gupta discloses the microelectro-optical beam-guidance device as recited in claim 1 (see Fig 1). Shimizu further discloses wherein the at least two beam-guidance surfaces and the at least one optical filter are disposed and/or formed in such a way that the intended entry vector and the intended exit vector are at least essentially parallel to one another (see Fig 16; Para [0096]; light rays entering filter 20a and exiting filter 20b may be essentially parallel to one another as seen in Fig 16).
Regarding claim 7, Shimizu in view of Takagi and Gupta discloses the microelectro-optical beam-guidance device as recited in claim 1 (see Fig 1). Shimizu further discloses wherein the at least one optical filter has at least one surface which is inclined about two axes relative to at least one beam-guidance surface of the at least two beam-guidance surfaces (see Fig 2; Para [0053]; the optical filter 20a has a first surface ISa which is tilted about the x and y axes when compared to the light exit surface of 20b, ESb).
Regarding claim 8, Shimizu in view of Takagi and Gupta discloses the microelectro-optical beam-guidance device as recited in claim 1 (see Fig 1). Shimizu further discloses wherein the at least one optical filter is disposed at least partially between the at least two beam-guidance surfaces as viewed along an intended beam path for the light beam through the optical damping element (see Fig 2; Para [0053]; the first filter 20a is disposed between a light incident surface ISa and a light emission surface ESb when viewed along light path as seen in Fig 2).
Regarding claim 9, Shimizu in view of Takagi and Gupta discloses the microelectro-optical beam-guidance device as recited in claim 1 (see Fig 1). Shimizu further discloses wherein the at least one optical filter is disposed at least partially on at least one of the at least two beam-guidance surfaces (see Fig 2; Para [0053]; a first surface of the attenuator 20 is the same as the first surface of filter 20a, ISa).
Regarding claim 10, Shimizu in view of Takagi and Gupta discloses the microelectro-optical beam-guidance device as recited in claim 1 (see Fig 1). Shimizu further discloses wherein the at least two beam-guidance surfaces and the at least one optical filter are disposed and/or formed in such a way that the reflection vector and the vector antiparallel to the intended entry vector span an angle of at least 20° (see Fig 9; Para [0084]; a reflection vector may be inclined at 20 degrees with respect to an antiparallel entry vector as seen in Fig 9).
Regarding claim 11, Shimizu in view of Takagi and Gupta discloses the microelectro-optical beam-guidance device as recited in claim 1 (see Fig 1). Shimizu further discloses further comprising at least one detection unit configured to detect a portion of the light beam reflected within the optical damping element at the at least one optical filter (see Fig 2; Para [0056]; the light scanner 40 is configured to detect light via a piezoelectric sensor to detect light coming from the optical attenuator 20a and reflector 30).
Regarding claim 12, Shimizu discloses smart glasses as best understood, (see Fig 1) comprising at least one microelectro-optical beam-guidance device (see Fig 1; Para [0051]; a display unit 200), each of the at least one microelectro-optical beam-guidance device including: at least one optical damping element (see Fig 1; Para [0053]; device comprises optical attenuator 20 and light reflector 30) which includes at least one optical filter (see Fig 1; Para [0053]; optical attenuator 20a with a light reflector 30) and at least two beam-guidance surfaces (see Fig 1; Para [0053]; a first surface understood to be the entrance surface of element 20a, ISa, and a second surface understood to be the exit surface of 20b, ESb), the optical filter being provided to reduce an intensity of a light beam passing through the optical damping element (see Fig 1; Para [0053]; optical filters 20a and 20b and light reflector 30 attenuate light which passes through optical attenuator 20), the at least two beam-guidance surfaces being disposed and/or formed in such a way that an intended entry vector (see annotated Fig 1 above; Para [0053]; entry vector is vector of light incident onto ISa surface) of the light beam into the optical damping element and an intended exit vector (see annotated Fig 1 above; Para [0053]; exit vector is vector of light leaving surface ESb) of the light beam out of the optical damping element are offset relative to each other as viewed along the intended entry vector (see Fig 1; Para [0053]; as seen in annotated Fig 1 the entry vector is offset in the x and y directions with respect to the exit vector), wherein the at least two beam-guidance surfaces and the at least one optical filter are disposed and/or formed in such a way that portions of the light beam reflected at the at least one optical filter within the optical damping element have a reflection vector (see annotated Fig 1; Para [0053]; reflection vector is vector reflected from light reflected at reflector 30) upon exiting the optical damping element which is different from a vector antiparallel to the intended entry vector (see Fig 1; Para [0053]; light vector from reflected light of optical filter 20a and reflector 30 is reflected at an angle which is different from an angle antiparallel to the entry vector).
Shimizu does not disclose wherein the optical damping element includes two base bodies, each formed as a prism, and the at least one optical filter is disposed between the two base bodies. Shimizu and Takagi are related because both disclose optical systems in head-mounted displays
Takagi discloses an optical system in a head mounted display (see Fig 1) wherein the optical damping element includes two base bodies, each formed as a prism (see Fig 9; Para [0068-0069]; two wedge-shaped prisms 7q and 7p from base bodies)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Shimizu with wherein the optical damping element includes two base bodies, each formed as a prism of Takagi for the purpose of improving displayed image by allowing for image to be shifted (Para [0029-0030])
Shimizu in view of Takagi does not disclose wherein the at least one optical filter is disposed between the two base bodies. Shimizu in view of Takagi and Gupta are related because both disclose optical systems in head-mounted displays.
Gupta discloses an optical system in a head mounted display (see Fig 9) wherein the at least one optical filter is disposed between the two base bodies (see Fig 3A; Para [0029]; a polarizing coating which acts as optical filter is disposed between two prisms 102 and 110)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Shimizu in view of Takagi with wherein the at least one optical filter is disposed between the two base bodies of Gupta for the purpose of providing high contrast over a wide wavelength band (Para [0023])
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Salga (US 2021/0096338) discloses an optical system with a dual prism causing light to offset image displayed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL ANDRES SANZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3844. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am -5:30 pm.
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 on (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.
/G.A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/WILLIAM R ALEXANDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872