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 .
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of the amendment filed 10/03/225. Claims 1-7, 10-11 are amended and claims 1-11 are currently pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “31” has been used to designate both the left eye and the right eye. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the Specification recites “the eye 31 of the user 3” and characterizes “the eye 31” as having a position and capable of movement, though it is never clear whether this recitations refer to a single eye or the collection of eyes. As would be understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art, the phrase “the eyes” may refer to the union of both left and right eye and the position of such may be measured and determine through movement. Further, the phrase “the eye” would not be understood to refer to the union of both left and right eye and thus the movement of “the eye” may correspond to rotation of the eye within the ocular socket as opposed to movement of the socket itself.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “[a]n image display device, comprising: a light source configured to emit image light; a plurality of mirrors configured to: reflect the image light emitted from at least one light source; and project the image light on at least one of an eye of a user or an optical element; a mirror angle adjustment unit configured to: adjust a respective angle of each of the plurality of mirrors based on one of a basis of a specific position of the eye of the user or a specific position of the optical element; and adjust an inclination of an optical axis of the image light based on at least one of the specific position of the eve of the user or the specific position of the optical element; and an intermirror distance adjustment unit configured to adjust a distance between the plurality of mirrors based on each of the inclination of the optical axis of the image light and a basis of the respective angle of each of the plurality of mirrors.” The claimed combination of singular and plural elements and functions does not clearly define the metes and bounds of the invention in light of the Specifications.
In the phrase “a plurality of mirrors configured to: reflect the image light emitted from at least one light source”, the scope of the limitation includes a plurality of mirrors collectively (due to the singular form of the verb “reflect”) reflecting light from either (1) one light source or (2) more than one light source. Turning to the originally-filed disclosure, there is no description of an image display system having a single light source while performing the claimed function of the plurality of mirrors. It is understood that the Specifications repeatedly uses the phrase “at least one light source” though it is unclear how the invention would be modified from the explicitly disclosed embodiment(s) to accommodate a single light source. A person having ordinary skill in the art would understand there to be a one-to-one correspondence between a light source and mirror and no clear means for modifying the structure to configure the system with a single light source and a plurality of mirrors performing the claimed reflection. Due to the limitations requiring intermirror distance adjustments, it appears that the intended scope of invention implicitly requires the number of light sources to be two and the number of mirrors to be two, corresponding to respective light sources.
In the phrase “a plurality of mirrors configured to … project the image light on at least one of an eye of a user or an optical element” the scope of the limitation includes a plurality of mirrors collectively (due to the singular form of the verb “project”) projecting image light from one or more light sources onto (1) one eye or (2) two eyes. There is no disclosed structure shown or described to be capable of having two mirrors projecting light onto one eye or one mirror projecting light onto two eyes, as captured within the scope of the claim. Such embodiments are within the scope of this limitation and contradicted in other limitations requiring the intermirror distance adjustment unit operation. In light of the Specifications, projection of image light onto the user’s eyes is required to have one-to-one correspondence between an image source and a respective eye or between a rotatable mirror and a respective eye.
In the phrase “adjust an inclination of an optical axis of the image light based on at least one of the specific position of the eve of the user or the specific position of the optical element”, there is ambiguity in the antecedent basis of “the image light” as the prior language provides for “image light” (1) emitted from a source and impinging on at least one of the plurality of mirrors, and (2) reflect from at least one of the plurality of mirrors and impinging on the eye. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art may also understand the combination of (1) and (2) to be “image light” within the scope of the claim. The substantive difference between these interpretations results in indefiniteness in the structure corresponding to the function performed. Adjustment of an axis of image light under the interpretation of (1) may be inclusive of a rotation of the image source itself, an intervening optical element between the source and the mirror of the plurality of mirrors, or another means for altering light between the source and the claimed one of the plurality of mirrors. Adjustment of an axis of image light under the interpretation of (2) may be inclusive of only rotation of a mirror of the plurality of mirror and then static and/or stationary image light sources, for example. The mutually exclusive interpretations of “the image light” muddles the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected for having analogous language as that identified as indefinite above.
Claims 2-9 are rejected as dependent claims failing to cure the deficiencies of the independent claims.
Additionally, Claim 1 recites the limitation "the eye of the user" in Line 9, for example. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as the scope of the claim openly includes either one eye or two eyes and “the eye of the user” does not clarify the metes and bounds of the claim. As the claim requires adjustment of a respective angle of each of the plurality of mirrors based on a specific position of the eye of the user, in the alternative, the claim includes a specie in which a left mirror angle is based on either a left eye position or a right eye position, and vice versa with the other eye. Further, the original disclosure referrers to drawing reference number “31” as “eye of the user” when there are plural eyes depicted. The intended meaning of the nomenclature is unclear as the depicted user has two eyes labeled “31R” and “31L” respectively and yet each eye has an additional label with a parenthetical “31”. A person having ordinary skill in the art would not understand whether the broadest reasonable interpretation of “eye” would be to includes a plural form as well and the impact to the structure and function of the claimed invention is substantial. An image display device adjusting a respective mirror angle based on the position of the eyes collectively may rely on an algorithm using the midsagittal plane position of the user and not pupil tracking of the eyes individually. The metes and bounds of the mirror angle adjustment unit and intermirror distance adjustment unit cannot be determined as the steps of operation of the units are not clearly defined relative to adjustments “based on at least one of the specific position of the eye of the user”.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected for having analogous language as that identified as indefinite above.
Claims 2-9 are rejected as dependent claims failing to cure the deficiencies of the independent claims.
Claim 6 recites “the plurality of mirrors includes a right mirror, and a left mirror different from the right mirror, the right mirror corresponds corresponding to a right eye of the user the left mirror corresponds corresponding to a left eye of the user, based on the respective angle of the right mirror that is θmr and the respective angle of the left mirror that is θml, the intermirror distance adjustment unit is further configured to adjust the distance between the plurality of mirrors, the distance between the plurality of mirrors is equal to in such a manner that a specific valuer the specific value satisfies equation 1 obtained by calculating 2 x θmr + 2 x θml (1) and the specific value is less than or equal to between a stored maximum set value and greater than or equal to a stored minimum set value”. The claim recites that there is an “equation 1” but the mathematical expression is not an equation and a “specific value” cannot “satisfy” an expression. Further, the claim recites that a distance is “equal to a specific value”, which a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand to be a term for a dimensionless number. The recitation then requires a dimensioned number (i.e. intermirror distance) to be equal to a dimensionless number. Lastly, the language “the specific value is less than or equal to between a stored maximum set value and greater than or equal to a stored minimum set value” does not limit a range of “the specific value” other than by arbitrary limits. The metes and bounds of the further limitations would not be understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art. Claim 7 is rejected as being a dependent claim incorporating the indefiniteness and failing to cure the deficiency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pat. No. 8,246,170 to Yamamoto et al. (hereinafter Yamamoto).
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 11, Yamamoto discloses an image display device (Figs. 1-4), comprising: a light source configured to emit image light (“light sources 101 and 110 which emit beams for drawing each of pixels constituting a display image”, Figs. 1-4); a plurality of mirrors (scan mirrors 103 and 108, Figs. 1-4) configured to reflect image light (Figs. 1-4) and project the image light on at least one eye of a user (right and left eye, Figs. 1-4) or an optical element (deflection unit 104, Fig. 1); a mirror angle adjustment unit (“a movable mirror 4a to two-dimensionally scan”, Fig. 7) configured to adjust a respective angle of each of the plurality of mirrors based on one of a specific position of the eye of the user or a specific position of the optical element (a scan input/output control unit 512, a deflection input/output control unit 513, Figs. 1-4 & 15-17; col. 28, ln. 62-col. 34, ln. 56); adjust an inclination of an optical axis of the image light based on at least one of the specific position of the eye of the user and the specific position of the optical element (a scan input/output control unit 512, a deflection input/output control unit 513, Figs. 1-4 & 15-17; col. 28, ln. 62-col. 34, ln. 56); and an intermirror distance adjustment unit (a scan input/output control unit 512, a deflection input/output control unit 513, Fig. 1-4) configured to adjust a distance between the plurality of mirrors based on each of the inclination of the optical axis of the image light and the respective angle of each of the plurality of mirrors (“the image output unit 100 such that when a rotation of the user's eyeballs causes a change in the pupil position from a position including the first focal point to a position including the second focal point, a virtual image viewed by the user before the change in the pupil position and a virtual image viewed by the user after the change in the pupil position are seen in the same direction”, Figs. 1-4 & 15-17; col. 28, ln. 62-col. 34, ln. 56).
The claim does not limit a particular distance between the mirrors, for example a distance between mirror rotation axes. As independent rotation between mirrors oriented in Yamamoto would require distances to change between relative portions of the mirrors, Yamamoto anticipates the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
PNG
media_image1.png
900
1600
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Yamamoto discloses the optical element is configured to concentrate the image light on a pupil of the user and projects the image light on the pupil of the user (Fig. 1 & 4). Note: This claim entirely further limits an optional element of the base claim and thus prior art is not required to teach the limitation for anticipation of the scope of invention.
Regarding claim 3, Yamamoto discloses a position information acquisition unit is configured to acquire information associated with one of the specific position of the eye or the specific position optical element (Figs. 1-4 & 15-17; col. 28, ln. 62-col. 34, ln. 56).
Regarding claim 4, Yamamoto discloses the position information acquisition unit is further configured to acquire the information regarding the position based on of a captured image including the eye or the optical element (Figs. 1-4 & 15-17; col. 28, ln. 62-col. 34, ln. 56).
Regarding claim 5, Yamamoto discloses the mirror angle adjustment unit is further configured to adjust respective the angle in a specific direction and the specific direction is associated with one of a difference between a first position of the eye of the user before a movement of the eye of the user and a second position of the eye of the user after the movement of the eye of the user or a difference between a first position of the optical element before a movement of the optical element and a second position of the optical element after the movement of the optical element (Figs. 1 & 4).
Regarding claim 8, Yamamoto discloses the image light is coherent light (“the beam emitted is a laser beam obtained by synthesizing laser beams emitted from a red laser light source 211, a blue laser light source 212, and a green laser light source 213”).
Regarding claim 9, Yamamoto discloses the image light is laser light (“the beam emitted is a laser beam obtained by synthesizing laser beams emitted from a red laser light source 211, a blue laser light source 212, and a green laser light source 213”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J STANFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3337. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-4PM PST M-F.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571)272-2333. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER STANFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights