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 .
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 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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 2, 5-12 are pending. Claim 1 stands amended. Claim 12 is newly presented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the instant claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by the present amendment.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 5-9, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Yaroshchuk (US 20210191122 A1) in view of Eisenfeld (US 20230120015 A1, newly cited).
Regarding claim 1 and 11, Yaroshchuk teaches a projector (Fig. 2A) comprising:
a self-luminous display element (¶41, “an organic light-emitting diode (OLED) display panel”) configured to emit image light (230) that is multicolored and has a predetermined wavelength band for each color of light (¶46, full color);
a first diffraction element (235) configured to diffract the image light from the display element (Fig. 2A); and
a second diffraction element (245) configured to emit the image light while making angular compensation, by diffracting the image light, for angular separation of the image light occurring depending on the wavelength band of each color of light when diffracted by the first diffraction element (¶69, “For example, mutual compensation of the dispersion [considered as angular separation dependent on wavelength band] caused by the in-coupling and outcoupling gratings may be achieved in the two-grating waveguides.”), and
a light-transmitting member (210) to which the display element, the first diffraction element, and the second diffraction element are attached and in which the image light is guided (Fig. 1A, 1B, an eyewear indicating all components are attached, and Fig. 2A, indicating the light guiding relationship in schematic).
Yaroshchuk does not explicitly show wherein a light emitting surface of the display element is aligned with a light receiving surface of the second diffraction element.
However, Eisenfeld discloses a similar optical system (Fig. 1A, 1B, 2A, showing top or side direct injection of the image for display) having transmitting substrate regions (16 and 18) including a diffractive optical element configured to emit the image (¶40) that is aligned with the light emitting surface of the display element (14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teachings of Eisenfeld and mounted the display directly to the light transmitting member of Yaroshchuk for side injection of the image for the purpose of reducing the number of optical components (¶42, ¶45, Figs. 1A and 1B).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Yaroshchuk teaches the projector according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the second diffraction element is configured to emit the image light (230) such that the image light is condensed at a predetermined position (at the eye, e.g. Fig. 10A).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Yaroshchuk teaches the projector according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein each of the first diffraction element and the second diffraction element has a single-layer structure (Fig. 2A).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Yaroshchuk teaches the projector according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein each of the first diffraction element and the second diffraction element has a three-layer structure corresponding respectively to a first color light wavelength band, a second color light wavelength band, and a third color light wavelength band included in the image light (Figs. 10E, 10F, 11A-D, 12A-D, and 15).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Yaroshchuk teaches the projector according to claim 6, and further discloses wherein an air layer is provided between each layer in the three-layer structure (Figs. 11 and 12).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Yaroshchuk teaches the projector according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein each of the first diffraction element and the second diffraction element is made of a volume hologram (¶42-43).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Yaroshchuk teaches the projector according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the first diffraction element is smaller than the second diffraction element (Fig. 2A).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Yaroshchuk teaches the projector according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the light-transmitting member is disposed between the display element and the first diffraction element (e.g. Eisenfeld, Figs. 1A, 1B, 2A, showing transmitting member region(s) between the display 14 and the second region of diffractive optical element for outcoupling).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Yaroshchuk as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Danziger (US 20190056600 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Yaroshchuk teaches the projector according to claim 1, but does not explicitly show wherein the display element is configured to emit, in addition to the image light, component light of a transmission wavelength that passes through the first diffraction element, and the projector further comprises a light receiving unit configured to receive the component light of the transmission wavelength.
Danziger teaches an analogous projector (Figs. 17 and 18) and explicitly shows wherein the display element is configured to emit, in addition to the image light, component light of a transmission wavelength (display emits infrared as an “extra color” for eye tracking per ¶103-104) that passes through the first diffraction element (¶67 indicates the disclosed systems can be implemented with either partially reflective facets or diffractive elements, and Figs. 17 and 18 showing the dotted line infrared reflected by the eye transmitted through all elements), and the projector further comprises a light receiving unit (125) configured to receive the component light of the transmission wavelength (¶105).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the eye tracking features of Danziger to improve the projector of Yaroshchuk thus improving visibility of the projected image.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLLIN X BEATTY whose telephone number is (571)270-1255. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 10am - 6pm.
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 on 5712723689. 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.
/COLLIN X BEATTY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872