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 / Arguments
Applicant’s amendment regarding an optical axis of the diffractive reflector that is aligned parallel to a line of sight of the user when the user is looking forward (see claim 1 amendment) introduced 112(a) issues as new matter. Please see 112(a) rejection in this office action. And even still, do not overcome the prior art rejections. The 103 rejections are maintained.
Regarding new matter, Applicant’s Remarks, with respect, improperly amends and modifies Applicant’s Fig. 16 to manufacture support and add a parallel axis. Nothing in the section on “Risley Prism-Based Diffractive Reflectors” in Applicant’s specification says anything about an axis, about anything parallel, or about an optical axis. Instead, Applicant amended its own Fig. 16 and added a line, labeled it as “optical axis”, and is now arguing that this supports the amendment, even though this wasn’t in the original drawing, as filed.
Here is original Fig. 16:
PNG
media_image1.png
664
540
media_image1.png
Greyscale
ORIGINAL FIGURE 16
Now, on the next page is the improperly modified Figure 16 that Applicant submitted as support for the amendment:
PNG
media_image2.png
442
764
media_image2.png
Greyscale
APPLICANT’S MODIFIED FIGURE 16, ADDING A LINE FOR OPTICAL AXIS THAT WAS NOT IN THE ORIGINAL FIGURE, REMARKS, PAGE 9
Therefore, the examiner respectfully does not agree with Applicant’s support and moreover provides an analysis of where the specification does have optical axis, and why that too does not provide support, in the 112(a) rejection section of this office action, which for brevity will not be repeated herein.
Regarding the prior art, McEldowney teaches diffractive reflectors and an optical axis directed to a user’s eye, as mapped in the prior office action. Moreover, an “optical axis” is an imaginary line that passes through a geometrical center of an optical system, and in almost all cases will be parallel with a line of sight, absent off-axis systems, distortions, misalignment, or a system that intentionally sets the optical axis to not be parallel. The examiner takes official notice of this optic principle. McEldowney does not teach one of these systems, and in fact teaches that it seeks to remove or prevent distortion (C7, second full paragraph).
Accordingly, the 103 rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the specification does not support “the optical axis of the diffractive reflector directed toward the eye of the user with the optical axis aligned parallel to a line of sight of the user when the user is looking forward”.
First, Applicant states thar pars. 129-133 support the amendments. This is, with respect, not correct. These paragraphs of the specification describe “Risley Prism-Based Diffractive Reflectors”. “Optical axis” or even the word “axis” isn’t in any of these paragraphs.
Second, where the specification does describe an optical axis that is parallel to a line of sight, to the extent Applicant might believe this supports the amendment, it respectfully does not. See paragraph 70 (which Applicant did not indicate supported the amendment). Paragraph 70 of Applicant’s specification actually refers to Figure 3, a 3D image. And paragraph 70 uses or states “an optical or z-axis parallel to the line of sight” – not in relation to any diffractive reflector – but to describe how it is measuring how far images are spaced from a user’s eye for 3D imaging. This has nothing to do with diffractive reflectors. Just to describe a reference coordinate space for how a measurement is being made.
Third, Applicant’s attention is directed to Applicant’s own Figures 6 and 7. Neither of these show or illustrate an optical axis that is parallel to a user’s line of sight, associated with a diffractive reflector (Fig. 6: 608). In fact, all the lines are skewed, angled, and respectfully anything but parallel to a user’s line of sight when looking forward.
Should Applicant disagree, Applicant is requested/required to please point out, with sufficient specificity, where in the specification there is support and where the examiner has failed to understand Applicant’s written description, as described and cited above.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McEldowney (U.S. Patent No. 10,712,576) in view of Yaroshchuk (U.S. Patent No. 11,435,585 B1).
Regarding claim 1:
McEldowney teaches: a head-mounted display system comprising (Fig. 1: 120, near-eye display (e.g. Head-Mounted Display), as labeled in the figure): a frame (Fig. 2: 205, frame); an image light projector supported by the frame (Fig. 3:340, projector supported by frame);
a diffractive reflector (claim 1, deflector, in combination with C1, Summary, first partial paragraph, the deflector can be a steerable deflector or reflector, and C2, third full paragraph, the deflector can include a diffractive optical element)
(*alternative mapping: Fig. 11: 1060, the combiner also teaches Applicant’s claimed diffractive reflector)
comprising a plurality of diffractive layers that are arranged in series along an optical axis of the diffractive reflector (see e.g. C15, firs full paragraph; or C19, L30-55, or C20, second full paragraph), the deflector can include one or more mirrors, prisms, polarization gratings, or DOEs. Having more than one teaches a plurality of diffractive layers arranged in series along optical axis) (*alternative mapping, Fig. 11: 1060, combiner, also teaches this feature. The combiner can have diffractive optical elements, such as diffractive lenses or what is described in claim 3 of McEldowney), the diffractive reflector supported by the frame and disposed forward of the image light projector and in front of an eye of a user during use with the optical axis of the diffractive reflector directed toward the eye of the user with the optical axis aligned parallel to a line of sight of the user when the user is looking forward (Fig. 11: 1030, 1050, exemplary diffractive reflectors, as part of the optical system, which is part of the near-eye display and supported by frame (e.g. C14, last partial paragraph). Both 1030 and 1050 are in front of the eye, and 1030 at least has the optical axis directed toward the eye) (*alternative mapping: Fig. 11: 1060)
(re: parallel optical axis, see above 112(a) rejection. McEldowney teaches diffractive reflectors and an optical axis directed to a user’s eye, as mapped in the prior office action. Moreover, an “optical axis” is an imaginary line that passes through a geometrical center of an optical system, and in almost all cases will be parallel with a line of sight, absent off-axis systems, distortions, misalignment, or a system that intentionally sets the optical axis to not be parallel. The examiner takes official notice of this optic principle. McEldowney does not teach one of these systems, and in fact teaches that it seeks to remove or prevent distortion (C7, second full paragraph),
the diffractive reflector configured to receive image light projected by the image light projector and to reflect the image light back through one or more of the plurality of the diffractive layers into an eye of a user upon retention of the display system on the user (Fig. 11, deflectors 1030, 1050 are configured to receive light from a projector 1010 (image source as part of projector; see C15, L16-20), and reflect into eye (1070, exit pupil)… and
wherein the diffractive reflector further comprises an actuator supported by the frame and configured to change relative orientations of at least some of the diffractive layers laterally with respect to the optical axis of the diffractive reflector or rotationally about the optical axis of the diffractive reflector (claim 4, actuator configured to rotate or adjust phase delay pattern of deflector. More teaching: see C23, L35-57),
wherein different relative orientations of the diffractive layers are configured to reflect light to different associated eye positions (Id. This is the result of changed orientation of diffractive layers by actuator).
Regarding wherein the diffractive reflector is an optical combiner that is configured to combine world light with the projected light from the image light projector, consider the following.
In analogous art, Yaroshchuk teaches embodiments of head-mounted displays (see e.g. Fig. 1A, a head mounted display), that include an “angularly selective dimming element” that can serve as any one and up to all of the diffractive element(-s) of the device, such as serving as a “diffractive AR combiner” (see C21, beginning at the last paragraph or line 57, to the end of C21). To that end, a “diffractive AR combiner” can function not only as a diffractive reflector, but also to act as an optical combiner, to combine world light with light from the image light projector (see e.g. C8, L 16-20, which describes an “optical combiner” as “an image combiner that optically combines a virtual scene optically with a real-world scene”. Modifying the applied references, such that the system of McEldowney, further has the features of the “diffractive AR combiner” (i.e. an optical combiner) of Yaroshchuk, as its diffractive reflector, is taught/suggested by the prior art and would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill. One or ordinary skill would have been further motivated to make this modification in order to address see-through artifacts, described by Yaroshchuk, as one of the “key challenges” in the art. See C3, first full paragraph, which describes the challenge in the art, and the remainder of C3, as how the optical combiner can address this problem in the art.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained the above, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
The prior art included each element recited in claim 1, although not necessarily in a single embodiment, with the only difference being between the claimed element and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of certain elements in a single prior art embodiment, as described above.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2:
McEldowney teaches: the head-mounted display system of Claim 1, wherein the actuator is a mechanical actuator configured to change relative physical positions of the at least some of the diffractive layers (claim 4).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims, to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of McEldowney, to have obtained the above, motivated to have a system configuration whereby light can be manipulated to receive desired imaging results.
Regarding claim 8:
McEldowney teaches: the head-mounted display system of Claim 1, further comprising an eye tracking system for determining a position of the pupil of the eye of the user, wherein the actuator is configured to effectuate different orientations corresponding to different pupil locations based upon the determined position of the pupil (Summary, first paragraph, the deflector or reflector can be steered or moved based on a tracked location of the pupil of a user’s eye, in combination with claim 10, an eye-tracking subsystem. See also Summary, sixth paragraph, for more teaching).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims, to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of McEldowney, to have obtained the above, motivated to have a system configuration whereby light can be manipulated to receive desired imaging results specific to a user’s pupil location.
Regarding claim 9:
McEldowney teaches: the head-mounted display system of Claim 1, wherein the image light projector has a fixed orientation relative to the diffractive reflector (e.g. Fig. 4: 410, 412, or Fig. 5: 510, 520 of Fig. 11: 1010, any of these examples have a projector with a fixed orientation, which will be fixed relative to the diffractive reflector (i.e. Fig. 11).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims, to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of McEldowney, to have obtained the above, motivated to have a system configuration whereby light can be manipulated to receive desired imaging results.
Claim(s) 4, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McEldowney in view of Yaroshchuk and further in view of Coleman (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2021/0112647 A1).
Regarding claim 4:
McEldowney teaches that its deflector (diffractive reflector) can include a prism (claim 3), but does not specify a Risley prism. Consider the following.
In analogous art, Coleman teaches: the head-mounted display system of Claim 3, wherein the diffractive reflector comprises a Risley prism-based stack of diffractive layers (para. 90, Risley prisms are known to control and redirect light).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims, to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of Coleman to have obtained the above, motivated to have a system configuration whereby light can be manipulated to receive desired imaging results, and to make use of known architecture to affect same.
Regarding claim 6:
McEldowney teaches that its deflector can include volume holographic gratings, but does not specify volume phase holograms (see C22, first full paragraph). Consider the following.
In analogous art, Coleman teaches: the head-mounted display system of Claim 1, wherein the diffractive layers comprise volume phase holograms (para. 61, AROE (axially redirecting optical element, which redirects light from a light source, see para. 49), can include volume phase holograms).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims, to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of Coleman to have obtained the above, motivated to have a system configuration whereby light can be manipulated to receive desired imaging results, and to make use of known architecture to affect same.
Regarding claim 7:
Coleman teaches: the head-mounted display system of Claim 1, wherein the diffractive layers comprise reflective geometric phase lenses (para. 61).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims, to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of Coleman to have obtained the above, motivated to have a system configuration whereby light can be manipulated to receive desired imaging results, and to make use of known architecture to affect same.
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 Sarah Lhymn whose telephone number is (571)270-0632. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM EST.
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, Xiao Wu can be reached at 571-272-7761. 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.
Sarah Lhymn
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2613
/Sarah Lhymn/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2613
Prosecution Insights