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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9/8/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the claims filed 9/8/2025 have been entered. Claims 1, 7 and 11 have been amended. Claims 2-3, 8 and 12 have been canceled. Therefore, claims 1, 4-7 and 9-11 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the amended claims 1, 4-7 and 9-11, applicant’s arguments with respect to amendments have been considered but are directed toward newly amended or newly added claims and are believed to be answered by and are therefore moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented below.
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.
Claims 1, 4-7, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. US 2018/0024366 in view of Broer et al. US 2005/0179371.
Regarding claim 1, Ma teaches a display system (100, ¶26, Figs 1-3) that overlays electronically generated images over physical real world views (augmented reality glasses allow viewing of both a real-world scene and images generated by display elements, see abstract, ¶2, and Figs 1-2); “the display system comprises an organic light emitting diode” (the display system 110 includes at least one organic light-emitting diode display element. See Ma ¶26); “an optical combiner overlays the light emitted by the organic light emitting diode with ambient light from the display system surroundings” ( [0038] The iris 302 of the viewer's eye 207 may clearly be seen through the beam-splitting optics elements 220a and 220b. This is meant to indicate that at least some ambient light can pass through the eyeglass substrate and the beam-splitting optics 120 to the viewer's eye 207. Accordingly, images of a real-world scene can be superimposed on images from the display elements, allowing the viewer's eye 207 to simultaneously perceive both the images from the display elements and images of a real-world scene. [ 0020] a person having ordinary skill in the art will readily recognize that the teachings herein can be applied in a multitude of different ways. The described implementations may be implemented in any device, apparatus, or system that can be configured to display an image, whether in motion (such as video) or stationary (such as still images), and whether textual, graphical or pictorial );
at least one polarizing beam splitter ( Ma teaches two beam-splitting optics elements 220a and 220b. See Ma Fig 2, and ¶41 ).
Ma fails to teach “an organic light emitting diode (OLED) comprising electroluminescent material wherein said OLED is constructed to produce emissions of photons that are retained in the OLED and that stimulate further emissions of photons that are emitted from the OLED electroluminescent material, wherein the light emitted by the OLED electroluminescent material is over ninety percent generated by that OLED-stimulated emission, and the light emitted by the electroluminescent material is circularly polarized."
Figures 1-2 and Par. 49 of Broer explained organic light emitting diodes having electroluminescent device 1 or the luminescent layer 9 forms a multi-color electroluminescent device. Par. 71 explained the electroluminescent device 1 having the luminescent layer 9 produced electrons light photons. Par. 73 explained the light having passed the polarizer 17 and the circular polarizer 23 are circularly polarized light. Par. 72 explained the light emitted by the luminescent layer 9 which is directed initially towards the light-reflecting surface 10 also reaches the viewer 2. In summary, in the electroluminescent device 100% (any light loss caused by non-idealities associated with the components of the device being disregarded) light emitted by the luminescent layer is able to reach the viewer.
Read as a whole, then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ), to substitute the OLED having electroluminescent device 1 or the luminescent layer 9 taught by Broer for the OLED of Ma such that the light emitted by the electroluminescent device or the luminescent layer 9 produced electrons light photons, is circularly polarized, and 100% light emitted by the luminescent layer is able to reach the viewer. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve a good contrast, even under high ambient lighting conditions, with a satisfactory brightness and efficiency. See Broer ¶ 14. See KSR Int'l. Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 401 (2007) (holding that the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is generally obvious).
Regarding claim 4, Ma teaches the display system of claim 1 wherein the combiner comprises a partially reflective and partially transmissive mirror ( the beam-splitting optics 120 may include a reflective polarizing beam-splitting layer to transmit p-polarized light while reflecting s-polarized light. See Ma ¶39).
Regarding claim 5, Ma teaches the display system of claim 1 wherein the display system is a head-mounted display system (see Ma ¶36 and Fig 3).
Regarding claim 6, Ma teaches the display system of claim 1, wherein the display system is a head-up display system (auto displays (including odometer and speedometer displays, etc.), cockpit controls and/or displays, camera view displays (such as the display of a rear view camera in a vehicle), and projectors. See Ma ¶20.)
Regarding claim 7, Ma teaches a head-mounted display system (a display system 100 is augmented reality glasses allow viewing of both a real-world scene and images generated by display elements, see abstract, ¶2, and Figs 1-3) that comprises an organic light emitting diode (organic light-emitting diode (OLED) display. See ¶26)
“at least one lens that projects graphic information from the organic light emitting diode to at least one eye of a head-mounted display wearer” ( [0030] In some implementations, the beam-splitting optics is configured for directing light from each display element towards the viewer's retina when the augmented reality glasses are worn. A larger image which is referred to herein as a “virtual larger image” is formed via stitching together multiple smaller images, one from each display element. [0031] In some implementations, the beam-splitting optics may be along the line of sight of the viewer's eye when the augmented reality glasses are worn. The beam-splitting optics also allows the viewer to see the real-world scene. [0020] a person having ordinary skill in the art will readily recognize that the teachings herein can be applied in a multitude of different ways. The described implementations may be implemented in any device, apparatus, or system that can be configured to display an image, whether in motion (such as video) or stationary (such as still images), and whether textual, graphical or pictorial.)
Ma fails to teach “an organic light emitting diode (OLED) comprising electroluminescent material wherein said OLED is constructed to produce emissions of photons that are retained in the OLED and that stimulate further emissions of photons that are emitted from the OLED electroluminescent material, wherein the light emitted by the OLED electroluminescent material is over ninety percent generated by that OLED-stimulated emission, and the light emitted by the electroluminescent material is circularly polarized."
Figures 1-2 and Par. 49 of Broer explained organic light emitting diodes having electroluminescent device 1 or the luminescent layer 9 forms a multi-color electroluminescent device. Par. 71 explained the electroluminescent device 1 having the luminescent layer 9 produced electrons light photons. Par. 73 explained the light having passed the polarizer 17 and the circular polarizer 23 are circularly polarized light. Par. 72 explained the light emitted by the luminescent layer 9 which is directed initially towards the light-reflecting surface 10 also reaches the viewer 2. In summary, in the electroluminescent device 100% (any light loss caused by non-idealities associated with the components of the device being disregarded) light emitted by the luminescent layer is able to reach the viewer.
Read as a whole, then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ), to substitute the OLED having electroluminescent device 1 or the luminescent layer 9 taught by Broer for the OLED of Ma such that the light emitted by the electroluminescent device or the luminescent layer 9 produced electrons light photons, is circularly polarized, and 100% light emitted by the luminescent layer is able to reach the viewer. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve a good contrast, even under high ambient lighting conditions, with a satisfactory brightness and efficiency. See Broer ¶ 14. See KSR Int'l. Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 401 (2007) (holding that the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is generally obvious).
Regarding claim 9, Ma teaches the head-mounted display system of claim 7, further comprising at least one mirror that projects graphic information from the organic light emitting diode to at least one eye of a head-mounted display wearer.
( The augmented reality glasses further comprises a mirror on a second and opposing side of the eyeglass substrate, the mirror configured to reflect light from a display element which is OLED to at least one of the one or more image optics lenses. See ¶27. A person having ordinary skill in the art will readily recognize that the teachings herein can be applied in a multitude of different ways. The described implementations may be implemented in any device, apparatus, or system that can be configured to display an image, whether in motion (such as video) or stationary (such as still images), and whether textual, graphical or pictorial. See Ma ¶20 ).
Regarding claim 10, Broer modified teaches the head-mounted display system of claim 9, wherein the organic light emitting diode emits circularly polarized light. ( Par. 73 explained the light having passed the polarizer 17 and the circular polarizer 23 are circularly polarized light ).
Regarding claim 11, Ma teaches a head-mounted display system (a display system 100 is augmented reality glasses allow viewing of both a real-world scene and images generated by display elements, see abstract, ¶2, and Figs 1-3) that comprises an organic light emitting diode that emits light (organic light-emitting diode (OLED) display. See ¶26)
“at least one mirror that projects graphic information from the organic light emitting diode to at least one eye of a head-mounted display wearer.”
(The augmented reality glasses further comprises a mirror on a second and opposing side of the eyeglass substrate, the mirror configured to reflect light from a display element which is OLED to at least one of the one or more image optics lenses. See ¶27. A person having ordinary skill in the art will readily recognize that the teachings herein can be applied in a multitude of different ways. The described implementations may be implemented in any device, apparatus, or system that can be configured to display an image, whether in motion (such as video) or stationary (such as still images), and whether textual, graphical or pictorial. See ¶20.)
Ma fails to teach “an organic light emitting diode (OLED) comprising electroluminescent material wherein said OLED is constructed to produce emissions of photons that are retained in the OLED and that stimulate further emissions of photons that are emitted from the OLED electroluminescent material, wherein the light emitted by the OLED electroluminescent material is over ninety percent generated by that OLED-stimulated emission, and the light emitted by the electroluminescent material is circularly polarized."
Figures 1-2 and Par. 49 of Broer explained organic light emitting diodes having electroluminescent device 1 or the luminescent layer 9 forms a multi-color electroluminescent device. Par. 71 explained the electroluminescent device 1 having the luminescent layer 9 produced electrons light photons. Par. 73 explained the light having passed the polarizer 17 and the circular polarizer 23 are circularly polarized light. Par. 72 explained the light emitted by the luminescent layer 9 which is directed initially towards the light-reflecting surface 10 also reaches the viewer 2. In summary, in the electroluminescent device 100% (any light loss caused by non-idealities associated with the components of the device being disregarded) light emitted by the luminescent layer is able to reach the viewer.
Read as a whole, then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ), to substitute the OLED having electroluminescent device 1 or the luminescent layer 9 taught by Broer for the OLED of Ma such that the light emitted by the electroluminescent device or the luminescent layer 9 produced electrons light photons, is circularly polarized, and 100% light emitted by the luminescent layer is able to reach the viewer. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve a good contrast, even under high ambient lighting conditions, with a satisfactory brightness and efficiency. See Broer ¶ 14. See KSR Int'l. Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 401 (2007) (holding that the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is generally obvious).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN M NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-7697, and email is kevin.nguyen2@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached M-T 8am-5pm.
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, Nitin K Patel can be reached on 571-272-7677. 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.
KEVIN M NGUYEN
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2628
/Kevin M Nguyen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2628