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 (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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08 January, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 08 January, 2026 has been fully considered and entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 7-9, 11, 21 and 22 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.
Claims 1 and 7-9, 11, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schultz (US 2017/0371160; hereinafter Schultz) in view of Yeoh et al. (US 2018/0275394; hereinafter Yeoh) and further in view of Malhotra et al. (US 2021/0191180; hereinafter Malhotra).
Regarding claim 1: Schultz disclosesAn image display device (see Fig. 3B), comprising: a waveguide assembly (Fig. 3B, waveguide 20); and a light-emitting unit (Fig. 1, projector 30; see paragraphs 0038-0042) configured to emit a light signal (see paragraph 0038), the light signal being transmitted through the waveguide assembly and forming an emergent light signal (see paragraphs 0015 and 0035).
Schultz further inherently includes the angles “wherein the center of viewing angle is located at an intersection of a line-of-sight horizontal plane and a line-of-sight vertical plane; a magnitude of a viewing angle from the line-of-sight horizontal plane to a top end of a viewing angle range is equal to a magnitude of a viewing angle from the line-of-sight horizontal plane to a bottom end of the viewing angle range; a magnitude of a viewing angle from the line-of-sight vertical plane to a left end of the viewing angle range is equal to a magnitude of a viewing angle from the line-of-sight vertical plane to a left end of the viewing angle range is equal to a magnitude of a viewing angle from the line-of-sight vertical plane to a right end of the viewing angle range”.
Schultz further discloses a prism disposed between the waveguide assembly and the light-emitting unit (Fig. 3B, prism 44); wherein the light-emitting unit has a light-outgoing face disposed directly opposite to the prism (Fig. 3B shows this); andthe prism is configured to change a transmission path of the light signal to change a magnitude of an incident angle and a magnitude of an emergent angle (see paragraph 0036, the change in the magnitude of an incident angle changes the magnitude of an emergent angle; see also Fig. 3B, the prism changes the magnitude of the incident angle; therefore, the prism is configured to change a transmission path of the light signal); the prism comprises a first incident surface (Fig. 3B, incident surface facing light source), a first reflective surface (Fig. 3B, first reflective surface 46a), a second reflective surface (Fig. 3B, second reflective surface 46b), and emergent surface (Fig. 3B, emergent surface facing the waveguide 20). Schultz further teaches that the light signal is conducted sequentially through the first incident surface, the first reflective surface, the second reflective surface, and the first emergent surface (see light path through prism in Fig. 3B).
Schultz fails to disclose that a center of the emergent light signal deviates from the center of viewing angle of a user. However, Schultz is related to augmented reality displays (see paragraph 0032). Yeoh, also related to augmented reality displays (see Abstract), teaches that in Augmented reality devices, images can be projected at different locations with respect to the center of a viewing angle of a user at different times, depending on what virtual content is being displayed (see for example Figs. 3-4b and paragraphs 0029, 0036, and 0042). In augmented reality displays, specifically in situations where it is desired to project virtual content away from the center of a user’s viewing angle, it would have been obvious to modify the Schultz device based on the teaching of Yeoh, such that, when desired, the center of the emergent light signal deviates from the center of viewing angle of a user. Alternatively, the center of the viewing angle of the user could be offset from the center of the emergent light by virtue of the user changing their viewing angle.
Schultz also fails to teach that the first incident surface is parallel to a surface of the waveguide assembly facing towards the light-emitting unit, and that the light signal emitted by the light-emitting unit is parallel to a normal line of a side of the waveguide assembly facing toward the light-emitting unit. However, Malhotra, also related to waveguide displays (see abstract), including for augmented reality (see paragraph 0077), teaches a waveguide display (Fig. 5B, near-eye display 550) having a prism (Fig. 5B, freeform optical element 560, see paragraph 0078) disposed between a waveguide assembly (Fig. 5B, waveguide display 580) and a light-emitting unit (Fig. 5B, light source 540). In the display taught by Malhotra, the first incident surface of the prism is parallel to a surface of the waveguide assembly facing towards the light-emitting unit, and the light signal emitted by the light-emitting unit is parallel to a normal line of a side of the waveguide assembly facing toward the light emitting unit (see light rays of Fig. 5B, as well as the first incident surface of prism 560 and surface of waveguide display 580 in contact with coupler 582).
Furthermore, As indicated by Applicant in the Response to the Restriction Requirement (filed on 03 July, 2025; see page 11), “the selection of different prisms is a matter of design choice of ordinary skill in the art.” It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to orient the light-emitting unit parallel to a normal line of a side of the waveguide facing toward the light emitting unit and for the prism to be configured such that the first incident surface of the prism is parallel to a surface of the waveguide assembly facing towards the light-emitting unit, since applicant has not disclosed that these relative orientations of the light-emitting unit and the first incident surface of the prism solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the Malhotra orientations for these components. Furthermore, in the near-eye display device of Schultz, the light-emitting unit is angled with respect to the surface of the waveguide, but as shown in Schultz Fig. 1, the eyeglass lenses of the near-eye display are angled with respect to the temple member (Fig. 1, temple member 32), with the light emitting unit oriented parallel to the temple member. Malhotra teaches a near-eye display having a different angle between the temple member and the lenses of the eyeglasses, appearing to be approximately perpendicular (see Fig. 3, frame 305). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in near-eye displays having a perpendicular angle between the temple member and the eyeglass lenses, such as appears to be the case in the eyeglasses taught by Malhotra, to preserve the feature of the Schultz where the light-emitting unit is aligned with the temple member.
Regarding claim 7: Modified Schultz teachesThe image display device according to claim 1 (as applied above), wherein the magnitude of the incident angle and the magnitude of the emergent angle are changed by the prism to allow the center of the emergent light signal to be located on the line-of-sight horizontal plane and deviate from the center of the viewing angle of the user (see Yeoh, Fig. 4B, virtual content 454-2, which appears on the line-of-sight horizontal plane if the user is looking straight into the center of the glasses at 464; alternatively, this could be achieved by the user changing their viewing angle).
Regarding claim 8: Modified Schultz teachesThe image display device according to claim 1 (as applied above), wherein: the first incident surface and the first reflective surface define a sixth included angle (see annotated Fig. 3B); an extension line of the first incident surface and the second reflective surface define a seventh included angle (see annotated Fig. 3B); the first emergent surface and the waveguide assembly define an eighth included angle (see annotated Fig. 3B).
While Schultz fails to teach that a difference between the sixth included angle and the seventh included angle is equal to half of the eighth included angle, as indicated by Applicant in the Response to the Restriction Requirement (filed on 03 July, 2025; see page 11), “the selection of different prisms is a matter of design choice of ordinary skill in the art.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to set the respective sixth, seventh, and eighth angles of the prism to whatever value allowed light to couple into the waveguide in a manner that achieves the desired emergent light properties, including such that the difference between the sixth included angle and the seventh included angle is equal to half of the eighth included angle, since the selection of different prisms is a matter of design choice of ordinary skill in the art.
Annotated Fig. 3B:
PNG
media_image1.png
506
576
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9: Modified Schultz teachesThe image display device according to claim 1 (as applied above), wherein the magnitude of the incident angle and the magnitude of the emergent angle are changed by the prism to allow the center of the element light signal to be located on the line-of-sight vertical plane and deviate from the center of the viewing angle of the user (see Yeoh, Fig. 4B, virtual content 456, which appears on the line-of-sight vertical plane if the user is looking straight into the center of the glasses at 464; alternatively, this could be achieved by the user changing their viewing angle).
Regarding claim 11: Modified Schultz teachesThe image display device according to claim 1 (as applied above), wherein the magnitude of the incident angle and the magnitude of the emergent angle are changed by the prism to allow an orthographic projection of the center of the emergent light signal on the line-of-sight vertical plane to be staggered from an orthographic projection of the center of the viewing angle of the user on the line-of-sight vertical plane, and to allow an orthographic projection of the center of the emergent light signal on the line-of-sight horizontal plane to be staggered from an orthographic projection of the center of the viewing angle of the user on the line-of-sight horizontal plane (see Yeoh, Fig. 4B, virtual content 454-2, which appears on the line-of-sight horizontal plane at one time point, but at another location at a second time point, which is staggered from the orthographic projection of the center of the viewing angle of the user on the line-of-sight vertical and horizontal planes, if the user is looking straight into the center of the glasses at 464; alternatively, this could be achieved by the user changing their viewing angle).
Regarding claim 21: Modified Schultz teaches the image display device according to claim 8, as applied above. The Schultz device further inherently includes a first included angle, “wherein the orthographic projection of the central light signal emitted by the first emergent surface on the line-of-sight horizontal plane and the orthographic projection of the normal line of the side of the waveguide assembly facing toward the light-emitting unit define a first included angle”. While Schultz fails to teach that a magnitude of the eighth included angle is equal to a magnitude of the first included angle, as indicated by Applicant in the Response to the Restriction Requirement (filed on 03 July, 2025; see page 11), “the selection of different prisms is a matter of design choice of ordinary skill in the art.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to set the respective sixth, seventh, and eighth angles of the prism to whatever value allowed light to couple into the waveguide in a manner that achieves the desired emergent light properties, including such that the magnitude of the eighth included angle is equal to a magnitude of the first included angle.
Regarding claim 22: Modified Schultz teaches the image display device of claim 21. In teaching the image display device of claim 21, modified Schultz teaches that the sixth included angle, the seventh included angle, and the first included angle satisfy a relationship of 2*(θ1- θ2)= θ3=α1, where θ1 represents the sixth included angle, θ2 represents the seventh included angle, θ3 represents the eighth included angle, and α1 represents the first included angle, since claim 8 already requires 2*(θ1- θ2)= θ3 and claim 21 requires θ3=α1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kirsten D Endresen whose telephone number is (703)756-1533. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday.
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 Hollweg can be reached at (571)270-1739. 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.
/KIRSTEN D. ENDRESEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874