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
Claim 1 is amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5, filed 12/01/2025, with respect to 112(a) and 112(b) rejections of claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(a) and 112(b) rejections of claims 1-20 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “image injection device in claim 1”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 4, 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robaina et al. (US 20180182173 A1) in view of Takayama (WO 2015012280 A1), Takatori (JP 2003230539 A) and Bae et al. (US 20180081149 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Robaina discloses in at least figures 2, 6 and 10, a head mounted display (wearable display system 60 fig. 2) comprising:
a frame (frame 80 fig. 2) configured to be supported on (the frame 80 is wearable by the user 90 paragraph [0074]) the head of the user (user 90 fig. 2);
an eyepiece (display 70 fig. 2) coupled to said frame (the display 70 is coupled to the frame 80 paragraph [0074]) and configured to be disposed in front of (the display 70 is in front of the eyes of user 90 paragraph [0074]) an eye of the user (user 90 fig. 2), said eyepiece (display 70 fig. 2) comprising a plurality of layers (stack of waveguides assembly 260 fig. 6 may be part of display 70 paragraph [0082]);
an image injection device (image injection device 360 fig. 6 may function as a source of light for the waveguides and may be utilized to inject image information into the waveguides paragraph [0083], the image injection devices may function as a source of light for the waveguides and may be utilized to inject image information into the waveguides current application paragraph [0040]) configured to provide image content (image injection device 360 is a light source for a waveguide to inject image - information to waveguide 310 paragraph [0083] as part of the stack of waveguides 260 fig. 6 which may be part of display 70 paragraph [0082]) to the eyepiece (display 70 fig. 2) for viewing by the user (user 90 fig. 2);
a transmissive diffractive or transmissive refractive optical element (stack of lenses 320, 330, 340, 350 fig. 6) disposed in or on the eyepiece (display 70 fig. 2).
Robaina does not disclose, a reflector disposed in or on the eyepiece, the reflector configured to reflect light received from an object for imaging;
a sensor array integrated in or directly on the eyepiece, the sensor array being positioned forward of the object and having an optical axis that defines a sensor direction of the sensor array that extends outwardly away from the sensor array, the sensor array being oriented with the sensor direction of the sensor array being directed away from the object such that the object is located aft of the sensor array with respect to the sensor direction; and
the transmissive diffractive or transmissive refractive optical element configured to receive light reflected from the reflector and diffract or refract at least a portion of the light toward the sensor array to image the object that is located aft of the sensor array.
However Takayama discloses in at least figure 6, a reflector (HOE 32B fig. 6) disposed in or on (HOE 32B is in the transparent plate 31R fig. 6) the eyepiece (transparent plate 31R fig. 6), the reflector (HOE 32B fig. 6) configured to reflect light received (the reflected light RA reflected by the user's eye UE is reflected by HOE 32B pg. 15 para. 2) from an object (users eye UE fig. 6) for imaging (the cameras 22A and 22B can capture images of the user's eye UE pg. 15 para. 4 of translation);
a sensor array (cameras 22A and 22B pg.15 para. 2 of translation) integrated in or directly on (camera 22A is shown directly on transparent plate 31R fig. 6) the eyepiece (transparent plate 31R fig. 6).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use an image sensor with reflectors as taught by Takayama in the display of
Robaina. The HOE elements can reflect visible and infrared light to allow for display and illumination functions (pg. 19 para. 5 of translation).
Additionally Takatori discloses in at least figure 8, the sensor array (imaging unit 30 fig. 8 array taught above by Takayama) being positioned forward (the imaging unit 30 is positioned forward of the eye on the support member 23L as shown below in fig. 8) of the object (eye as shown below in fig. 8) and having an optical axis (optical axis as shown below in fig. 8) of the sensor array (imaging unit 30 fig. 8 array taught above by Takayama) that extends outwardly away from (the optical axis extends from the imaging unit 30 to the hologram optical element 27 as shown below in fig. 8) the sensor array (imaging unit 30 fig. 8 array taught above by Takayama),
the sensor array (imaging unit 30 fig. 8 array taught above by Takayama) being oriented with (the imaging unit 30 is oriented with a forward sensor direction along the optical axis facing the hologram optical element 27 as shown below in fig. 8) the sensor direction (sensor direction as shown below in fig. 8) of the sensor array (imaging unit 30 fig. 8 array taught above by Takayama) being directed away from (the sensor direction of the imaging unit 30 is directed away from the eye towards the hologram optical element 27 as shown below in fig. 8) the object (eye as shown below in fig. 6) such that the object (eye as shown below in fig. 6) is located aft of (the eye is aft of the imaging unit 30 as shown below in fig. 6 where hologram optical element 27 also has diffraction conditions set so that it reflects infrared light from the illumination unit 60 and guides it to the eye and reflects the infrared light reflected by the eye toward the imaging unit 30 and the illumination unit 60 paragraph [0036] of translation) the sensor array (imaging unit 30 fig. 8 array taught above by Takayama) with respect to the sensor direction (sensor direction as shown below in fig. 6); and
to image (the gaze detection device 1 captures an image of the eye with an imaging unit 30 paragraph [0018] of translation) the object (eye as shown below in fig. 6) that is located aft (the eye is aft of the imaging unit 30 in the sensor direction as shown below in fig. 6) of the sensor array (imaging unit 30 fig. 8 array taught above by Takayama).
PNG
media_image1.png
385
624
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use an image sensor directed away from the eye as taught by Takatori in the display of Robaina. The hologram optical element is able to reflect infrared light to the image sensor for imaging of the eye while transmitting visible light from the front (paragraph [0036] of translation).
Further Bae discloses in at least figure 5, the transmissive diffractive or transmissive refractive optical element (lens array LA transmits light to the image sensor IS fig. 1 where the lenses have refractive powers paragraph [0095]) configured to receive light (lens array LA transmits light to the image sensor IS reflected by reflector R fig. 1) reflected from the reflector (reflector R fig. 1) and diffract or refract at least a portion of the light (the light is refracted by the lens array to the image senor IS fig. 1) toward the sensor (image senor IS receives light reflected by reflector R fig. 1) array (sensor array is disclosed above by Robaina).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use the lens array with the reflector as taught by Bae in the display of Robaina. The image sensor receives a focused image from the lens assembly as it transmitted from the reflector paragraph [0174]).
Regarding claim 4, The combination Robaina, Takayama, Takatori and Bae disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Robaina does not disclose, wherein said transmissive diffractive or transmissive refractive optical element comprises at least one lens aligned with respect to said sensor array such that light from said reflector passes through said at least one lens to said sensor array to form images thereon.
However Bae further discloses, wherein said transmissive diffractive or transmissive refractive optical element (lens array LA fig. 5) comprises at least one lens (first lens L10 fig. 5) aligned with respect to said sensor (image senor IS fig. 5) array (sensor array is disclosed above by Robaina) such that light from said reflector (reflector R fig. 5) passes through said at least one lens (first lens L10 fig. 5) to said sensor (image senor IS fig. 5) array (sensor array is disclosed above by Robaina) to form images thereon (light is reflected from reflector R through first lens L10 to the images sensor IS to form an image fig. 5).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to add the reflector and refractive transmissive optical system as taught by Bae to the HMD of Robaina. The lens array and reflector create a high quality image (paragraph [0068]). claim 4.
Regarding claim 12, The combination Robaina, Takayama, Takatori and Bae disclose all the limitations of claim 4.
Robaina does not disclose, wherein said transmissive diffractive or transmissive refractive optical element is disposed in an optical path between said reflector and said sensor array.
However Bae further discloses, wherein said transmissive diffractive or transmissive refractive optical element (first lens L10 fig. 5) is disposed (the first lens L10 is between the reflector R and the image sensor IS fig. 5) in an optical path (second optical axis OA 2 fig. 5) between said reflector (reflector R fig. 5) and said sensor (image sensor IS fig. 5) array (sensor array is disclosed above by Robaina).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to add the reflector and refractive transmissive optical system as taught by Bae to the HMD of Robaina. The lens array and reflector create a high quality image (paragraph [0068]).
Regarding claim 15, The combination Robaina, Takayama, Takatori and Bae disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and Robaina further discloses, wherein said transmissive diffractive or transmissive refractive optical element (lens 320 fig. 6) has optical power (there is an aggerate focal power for the lens stack including lens 320 paragraph [0090]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robaina et al. (US 20180182173 A1) in view of Takayama (WO 2015012280 A1), Takatori (JP 2003230539 A) and Bae et al. (US 20180081149 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Roimela et al. (US 20170357873 A1).
Regarding claim 2, The combination Robaina, Takayama, Takatori and Bae disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and Robaina further discloses, said sensor array (light detectors 24 fig. 10) is formed on at least one (the light detectors 24 are on the waveguide stacks 2005 and 2006 fig. 10) of said layers (waveguide stacks 2005 and 2006 fig. 10 are the waveguides for display system 2010 paragraph [0121]).
Robaina does not disclose, wherein said sensor array comprises a plurality of detector pixels.
However Roimela discloses in at least figure 2, wherein said sensor (image sensor DET1 fig. 2) array (sensor array is disclosed above by Robaina) comprises a plurality of detector pixels (image sensor DET1 may comprise a two dimensional array of detector pixels paragraph [0063]).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use the detector pixels as taught by Roimela in the image senor of Robaina. The detector pixels allows for images to be formed from received light (paragraph [0063]).
Claims 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robaina et al. (US 20180182173 A1) in view of Takayama (WO 2015012280 A1), Takatori (JP 2003230539 A) and Bae et al. (US 20180081149 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 4 above and in further view of Edwin et al. (US 20200018968 A1).
Regarding claim 3, The combination Robaina, Takayama, Takatori and Bae disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Robaina does not disclose, wherein said sensor array comprises wafer scale optics.
However Edwin discloses in at least figure 30, wherein said sensor (sensor 250 fig. 30) array (sensor array is disclosed above by Robaina) comprises wafer scale optics (image sensor 250 can employ a wafer camera paragraph [0253]).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use a wafer camera as taught by Edwin in the image senor of Robaina. The wafer camera allows the sensor to be smaller and decrease the weight of the HMD. claim 4.
Regarding claim 7, The combination Robaina, Takayama, Takatori and Bae disclose all the limitations of claim 4.
Robaina does not disclose, wherein at least one lens comprises wafer scale optics.
However Edwin discloses in at least figure 30, wherein said sensor (sensor 250 fig. 30) array (sensor array is disclosed above by Robaina) comprises wafer scale optics (image sensor 250 can employ a wafer camera paragraph [0253]).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use a wafer camera as taught by Edwin in the image senor of Robaina. The wafer camera allows the sensor to be smaller and decrease the weight of the HMD.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robaina et al. (US 20180182173 A1) in view of Takayama (WO 2015012280 A1), Takatori (JP 2003230539 A) and Bae et al. (US 20180081149 A1) as applied to claims 4 above and in further view of Xie et al. (CN 108428716 A).
Regarding claim 5, The combination Robaina, Takayama, Takatori and Bae disclose all the limitations of claim 4 and Robaina further discloses, at least one lens (lens 320 fig. 6) is disposed in or on a second different layer (below waveguide 310 fig. 6) of said plurality of layers (stack of waveguides assembly 260 fig. 6 may be part of display 70 paragraph [0082]) of said eyepiece (display 70 fig. 2).
However Xie discloses in at least figure 6, wherein said sensor (image sensor 622 fig. 6) array (sensor array taught above by Robaina) is disposed in or on (image sensor 622 may be a part of the circuit 630 paragraph [0080] of translation in the SOL device 600 fig. 6) a first layer (circuit 630 fig. 6) said eyepiece (SOL device 600 fig. 6).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to place the image sensor on a layer of the eyepiece as taught by Xie in the HMD of Robaina. The image sensor can be part of the circuit 630 to be integrated with other sensors (paragraph [0087] of translation).
Regarding claim 6, The combination Robaina, Takayama, Takatori and Bae disclose all the limitations of claim 4.
Robaina does not disclose, wherein said sensor array is disposed in or on a first side of a layer of said plurality of layers of said eyepiece and said at least one lens is disposed in or on a second opposite side of said layer.
However Xie discloses, wherein said sensor (image sensor 622 fig. 6) array (sensor array taught above by Robaina) is disposed in or on (image sensor 622 may be a part of the circuit 630 paragraph [0080] of translation in the SOL device 600 fig. 6) a first layer (circuit 630 fig. 6) said eyepiece (SOL device 600 fig. 6) and said at least one lens (lens 640 fig. 6) is disposed in or on a second opposite side (the lens 640 is under the circuit 630 on the opposite side of sensor 622 fig. 6) of said layer (circuit 630 fig. 6).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to place the image sensor on a layer of the eyepiece as taught by Xie in the HMD of Robaina. The image sensor can be part of the circuit 630 to be integrated with other sensors (paragraph [0087] of translation).
Claims 8-11, 14, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robaina et al. (US 20180182173 A1) in view of Takayama (WO 2015012280 A1), Takatori (JP 2003230539 A) and Bae et al. (US 20180081149 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Gao et al. (US 20180275409 A1).
Regarding claim 8, The combination Robaina, Takayama, Takatori and Bae disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Robaina does not disclose, wherein said reflector comprises a hot mirror.
However Gao discloses in at least figure 18, wherein said reflector (prism 1878 fig. 18) comprises a hot mirror (the prism may be a hot mirror paragraph [0131]).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use a hot mirror as taught by Gao in the HMD of Robaina. The hot mirror reflects infrared light and passes visible light.
Regarding claim 9, The combination Robaina, Takayama, Takatori and Bae disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Robaina does not disclose, wherein said reflector is configured to reflect light of a first range of infrared (IR) or near-IR wavelengths while transmitting light of a second range of visible wavelengths.
However Gao discloses in at least figure 18, wherein said reflector (prism 1878 fig. 18) is configured to reflect light of a first range of infrared (IR) or near-IR wavelengths (the surface 1878a may comprise reflective coatings that are reflective in the IR paragraph [0131]) while transmitting light of a second range of visible wavelengths (the surface 1878a may comprise reflective coatings that are transmissive in the visible spectrum paragraph [0131]).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use a hot mirror as taught by Gao in the HMD of Robaina. The hot mirror reflects infrared light and passes visible light (paragraph [0131]).
Regarding claim 10, The combination Robaina, Takayama, Takatori and Bae disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Robaina does not disclose, wherein said reflector is formed on at least one of said plurality of
However Gao discloses in at least figure 18, wherein said reflector (prism 1878 fig. 18) is formed on (the prism 1878 is on the substrate 1770 fig. 18) at least one (substrate 1770 fig. 18) of said plurality of layers (optical component 1850 and substrate 1770 fig. 18).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use a reflective element on one of the layers as taught by Gao in the HMD of Robaina. The reflective element directs light from the layers to the camera assembly so that it can capture an off-axis image of the object (paragraph [0131]).
Regarding claim 11, The combination Robaina, Takayama, Takatori and Bae disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Robaina does not disclose, wherein said reflector comprises one of said plurality of layers.
However Gao discloses, wherein said reflector (reflective element 1678 fig. 16) comprises one (the reflective element is in substrate 1070 fig. 16) of said plurality of layers (substrate 1070 and optical component 1650 fig. 16).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use a reflective element in one of the layers as taught by Gao in the HMD of Robaina. The reflective element directs light from the layers to the camera assembly so that it can capture an off-axis image of the object as if being directly viewing the object (paragraph [0127]).
Regarding claim 14, The combination Robaina, Takayama, Takatori and Bae disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Robaina does not disclose, wherein said transmissive diffractive or transmissive refractive optical element comprises an off-axis optical element.
However Gao discloses in fig. 11, wherein said transmissive diffractive or transmissive refractive optical element (DOE 1188a fig. 11) comprises an off-axis optical element (the DOE may be an off-axis DOE paragraph [0106]).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use an off axis diffractive element as taught by Gao in the HMD of Robaina. The off axis element transmits the reflected light to the image sensor.
Regarding claim 16, The combination Robaina, Takayama, Takatori and Bae disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and Robaina further discloses, wherein said transmissive diffractive or transmissive refractive optical element (lens 320 fig. 6).
Robaina does not disclose, wherein said transmissive diffractive or transmissive refractive optical element comprises an off-axis lens.
However Gao discloses in fig. 12A, wherein said transmissive diffractive or transmissive refractive optical element (DOE 1188b fig. 12A) comprises an off-axis optical element (DOE 1188b is off the optical axis 1222 fig. 12A).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use an off axis orientation as taught by Gao for the lens of Robaina. The off axis element transmits the reflected light to the image sensor.
Regarding claim 18, The combination Robaina, Takayama, Takatori and Bae disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Robaina does not disclose, wherein the sensor array is a forward facing camera configured to image at least part of the object based at least in part on light received from said reflector, which is disposed forward of said sensor array, the at least part of the object being disposed rearward of said sensor array and comprising at least one of:
the eye of the user,
a part of the eye, or
a portion of tissue surrounding the eye.
However Gao discloses in at least figure 10A, wherein the sensor (camera assembly 1030 fig. 10B) array (sensor array is disclosed above by Robaina) is a forward facing camera (the camera assembly 1030 can be mounted so that it is forward facing paragraph [0087]) configured to image at least part of the object (the camera assembly 1030 may include an image capture device and a light source 1032 to project light to the eye 220, which may then be reflected by the eye 220 and detected by the camera assembly 1030 paragraph [0088]) based at least in part on light received from said reflector (optical element 1078 reflects IR light paragraph [0089]), which is disposed forward of said sensor array (the optical element 1078 is forward of the camera assembly 1030 fig. 1), the at least part of the object being disposed rearward (part of the eye 220 is rearward of the camera assembly 1030 fig. 10A) of said sensor (camera assembly 1030 fig. 10B) array (sensor array is disclosed above by Robaina) and comprising at least one of:
the eye of the user,
a part of the eye (a part of the eye 220 fig. 10A), or
a portion of tissue surrounding the eye.
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have the sensor array face forward as taught by Gao in the HMD of Robaina. The imaging system 1000a can act as if there were a virtual camera assembly 1030c directed back toward the wearer's eye 220 capturing a direct view image of the eye 220 (paragraph [0091]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robaina et al. (US 20180182173 A1) in view of Takayama (WO 2015012280 A1), Takatori (JP 2003230539 A) and Bae et al. (US 20180081149 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Xie et al. (CN 108428716 A) and Gao et al. (US 20180275409 A1).
Regarding claim 13, The combination Robaina, Takayama, Takatori and Bae disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and Robaina further discloses, said transmissive diffractive or transmissive refractive optical element (lens 320 fig. 6) is disposed on (the lens 320 is under the waveguide 310 fig. 6) a second layer (waveguide 310 fig. 6) of said plurality of layers (waveguides 270, 280, 290, 300 and 310 fig. 6) and said second layer (waveguide 310 fig. 6) disposed between (the waveguide 310 is an intermediate layer fig. 6) said first (first layer taught below by Gao) and third layers (third layer taught below by Xie). layers, Robaina does not disclose, said sensor array is disposed on a third layer of said plurality of wherein said reflector is disposed on a first layer of said plurality of layers, said second layer disposed between said first and third layers. However Xie discloses, wherein said sensor (image sensor 622 fig. 6) array (sensor array taught above by Robaina) is disposed in or on (image sensor 622 may be a part of the circuit 630 paragraph Application/Control Number: 18/259,044 Art Unit: 2872 Page 19 [0080] of translation in the SOL device 600 fig. 6) a third layer (circuit 630 fig. 6) said eyepiece (SOL device 600 fig. 6).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to place the image sensor on a layer of the eyepiece as taught by Xie in the HMD of Robaina. The image sensor can be part of the circuit 630 to be integrated with other sensors (paragraph [0087] of translation).
Additionally Gao discloses in at least fig. 18, wherein said reflector (prism 1878 fig. 18) is disposed on a first layer (substrate 1770 fig. 18) of said plurality of layers (substrate 1770 and optical element 1850 fig. 18).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use a reflective element on a substrate after the optical element as taught by Gao in the HMD of Robaina. The reflective element directs light from the layers to the camera assembly so that it can capture an off-axis image of the object (paragraph [0131]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robaina et al. (US 20180182173 A1) in view of Takayama (WO 2015012280 A1) and Bae et al. (US 20180081149 A1) applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Cai et al. (US 20200026087 A1).
Regarding claim 17, The combination Robaina, Takayama, Takatori and Bae disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Robaina does not disclose, wherein at least a portion of said transmissive diffractive or transmissive refractive optical element is imprinted on one of the layers of the plurality of layers of the eyepiece.
However Cai discloses in at least figure 11, wherein at least a portion of said transmissive diffractive or transmissive refractive optical element (switchable DOE paragraph [0087]) is imprinted (switchable DOE is nano- imprinted on the waveguide paragraph [0087]) on one of the layers (waveguide paragraph [0087]) of the plurality of layers (Robaina discloses a plurality of waveguide layers above) of the eyepiece (display panels 1120R and 1120L fig. 11).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to imprint the diffractive or refractive optical element onto the waveguide layer as taught by Cai in the HMD of Robaina. Imprinting the optical element provides a wider horizontal FOV (paragraph [0087]).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robaina et al. (US 20180182173 A1) in view of Takayama (WO 2015012280 A1), Takatori (JP 2003230539 A) and Bae et al. (US 20180081149 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Oh et al. (WO 2020191224 A1).
Regarding claim 19, The combination Robaina, Takayama, Takatori and Bae disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Robaina does not disclose, wherein the sensor array is further configured to image an object in the environment in front of said eyepiece.
However Oh discloses in at least figure 14B, wherein the sensor (camera 902 fig. 14B) array (sensor array is disclosed above by Robaina) is further configured to image (imaging system 900 can be used to image a portion of an environment in front of the user and/or objects in the portion of the environment paragraph [0162] an object (object 972 fig. 14B) in the environment in front of (the object 972 is in front of the waveguide 940 and optical element 944 fig. 14B) said eyepiece (waveguide 940 includes optical element 944 paragraph [0164]).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have the sensor array face rearward toward the eye as taught by Oh in the HMD of Robaina. The camera is able to capture images of the environment using the reflection of the waveguide (paragraph [0166]).
Regarding claim 20, The combination of Robaina, Takayama, Bae and Gao disclose all the limitations of claim 19.
Robaina does not disclose, wherein the sensor array is a backward facing camera configured to image at least part of the object based at least in part on light received from said reflector, which is rearward of said sensor array, the at least part of the object disposed forward of the sensor array in the environment in front of the user.
However, Oh further discloses, wherein the sensor (camera 920 fig. 14B) array (sensor array is disclosed above by Robaina) is a backward facing camera (the camera 920 is facing backward toward the eye fig. 14 B) configured to image at least part of the object (object 972 fig. 14B) based at least in part on light received from said reflector (optical element 944 fig. 14B, uses turning features to turn light with total internal reflection paragraph [0165]), which is rearward (the optical element 944 is rearward of the camera 920 fig. 14B) of said sensor (camera 920 fig. 14B) array (sensor array is disclosed above by Robaina), the at least part of the object (object 972 fig. 14B) disposed forward (the object 972 is forwarded of the camera 920 fig. 14B) the sensor (camera 920 fig. 14B) array (sensor array is disclosed above by Robaina) in the environment (the object 972 is in front of the user fig. 14B) in front of the user (eye fig. 14B).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have the sensor array face rearward toward the eye as taught by Oh in the HMD of Robaina. The camera is able to capture images of the environment using the reflection of the waveguide (paragraph [0166]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fursich (US 20160209647 A1) discloses a vehicle vison system with a projector unit in front of the eye and facing away from it.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW R WRIGHT whose telephone number is (703)756-5822. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30-5 Friday 8-12.
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 at 1-571-270-1284. 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.
/ANDREW R WRIGHT/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/PINPING SUN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872