Detailed Office Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4, 6-15, and 21-26 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 12, and 17-26
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 12, and 17-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thakur et al. (2019/0039515; “Thakur”) in view of Draper, Craig Thomas ( (2021). Holographic Curved Waveguide Combiner for HUD/AR, Master's thesis, University of Arizona, Tucson, USA; “Draper”), further in view of Yanusik et al. (“Pupil replication waveguide system for autostereoscopic imaging with a wide field of view, Opt. Express 29, 36287-36301 (2021); “Yanusik”), and further in view of Ronen et al. (2022/0075194; “Ronen”).
Regarding claim 1, Thakur discloses in figure 3, and related figures and text, a structure and method for pupil expansion and replication comprising two partial mirror 330 and 335. Thakur, Abstract (“The pupil formed by an optical apparatus is expanded by use of a beam splitter to replicate the pupil and a waveguide to further replicate the replicated pupil. …In some embodiments, the beam splitter replication expands the pupil in one direction, while the waveguide replication expands the pupil in a second direction.”) and paragraph [0033] FIG. 3 is a block diagram of a similar embodiment 300 that employs a plate beam splitter, comprising air spaced partial mirrors 330 and 335 to expand the pupil formed by lenses 320 for projecting light from display panel 310 onto surface 340. In this embodiment, one mirror performs the beam splitting, and the other mirror serves as a fold mirror for the light, so that the replicated pupil is replicated in one dimension of the two-dimensional coordinate system. As with the prismatic embodiment of FIG. 2, the pupil expansion maintains ray angles so no image artifacts are created. Mirror 335 folds the light similarly to prism 235 in FIG. 2, and a prismatic mirror 235 may be used instead of mirror 335 if desired.
Thakur – Figure 3
PNG
media_image1.png
454
811
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Further regarding claim 1, Draper discloses in figures 2.1-2.5, 3.1, 3.4, and 3.6, and related figures and text, for example, Draper – Selected Text, structure and methods for expansion and replication comprising partially transparent waveguide regions separated by non-transparent waveguide regions. Draper – Selected Text; Yanusik, figure 7(a) and related figures and text.
Draper – Figures 2.1-2.5, 3.1, 3.4, and 3.6
PNG
media_image2.png
514
679
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
553
700
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
539
724
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
525
700
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
599
716
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
520
704
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
534
725
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
356
771
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Draper – Selected Text
Abstract. This thesis contains efforts toward head up display and augmented reality devices using combiners comprised of holographic optical elements on waveguides.
Holographic optical elements couple image bearing light beyond total internal reflection conditions within a planar waveguide. The pupil is expanded in 2 dimensions while magnifying the image to produce a head up display with smaller form factor and large field of view over an expanded eye box [1].
Aberration in the form of image duplication is seen in pupil replicating waveguide combiners which were examined and realized to be from the conditions of the internally propagating light. The internally propagating light should be collimated, and a solution is proposed for multiple depths of field to be projected into the viewer’s field of view free from aberration [2].
3.1 Background
Research has been conducted to reduce the form factor of HUD and AR systems where one such solution is waveguide pupil replication. Eyebox expansion by pupil replication has become an important advancement which can also reduce the footprint of HUD and NED systems while increasing the field of view. This is particularly advantageous in NED systems where a small form factor is crucial and generally results in a small exit pupil in traditional systems [24].
The eyebox is defined as the 3-dimensional volume over which a user can move their eyes and see the entire projected image. Field of view is defined as the angular size a projected image encompasses of a user’s visual system. The footprint of the system can include the waveguide coupling optics and the projector system. The exit pupil of a typical NED should be at least 15 mm in diameter to allow for the waveguide to shift while in use and allow for the user to be undisturbed by the movement as the image is still present as well as to compensate for the differences in interpupillary distance among the human population [25]. Pupil replication can expand the small exit pupil produced by a light engine to fill the required exit pupil size. The concept of pupil duplication using a waveguide extracts recirculated light multiple times increasing the pupil can be seen in Figure 3.1. This can be applied to both the vertical and horizontal directions for a 2- dimensional pupil expansion. In order for the extracted light to have a uniform brightness, the extraction efficiency should vary along the number of extractions [1]. To avoid aberration in the final image, stringent tolerances are imposed on surface defects on the waveguide since these surface errors are being compiled by the multiple interactions through total internal reflection [26].
A holographic waveguide system consists of an insertion hologram and an extraction hologram. The insertion hologram couples image bearing light into a planar waveguide. This light propagates through the waveguide until it interacts with the extraction hologram. The diffraction efficiency of the extraction hologram should vary along the propagation path of the light, so the same amount of light is directed toward the viewer regardless of its position in the entire extraction region. The varying diffraction efficiency preserves the image brightness across the eyebox.
For 2D pupil expansion, a redirection hologram is located between the insertion and the extraction hologram. The purpose of the redirection hologram is to expand the pupil in one dimension while keeping the light inside the waveguide by redirection at 90 degrees. In this case, the light that was initially traveling across the width of the waveguide is now traveling along its length, and the extraction hologram expands the pupil in the other dimension.
3.2 Optical System
The optical system we are investigating is schematically represented in Figure 3.1. Waveguide pupil replication is achieved using holograms laminated to a flat glass waveguide. An edge lit hologram diffracts light at an angle such that it satisfies the total internal reflection condition. The insertion hologram receives incident image bearing light and couples the image by redirecting it to propagate internal of the waveguide. The mean angle of propagation takes the halfway point between the critical angle for TIR and when the angle is so extreme that it misses the extraction hologram demonstrated in Figure 3.2. The extraction hologram outcouples light from the waveguide and directs it toward the user. The extraction hologram has segmented diffraction efficiency to extract a percentage of the light as the light propagates through the waveguide. This allows for a uniform brightness of the image as the user moves across the expanded pupil.
Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Thakur because the resultant configuration would enhance augmented reality capabilities. Draper, Prospects (“Future work should focus on improving the holographic materials and waveguide quality in the case of a curved combiner, working with different geometries of waveguide combiners and improving augmented reality experience…. Another task is toward achieving a true augmented reality experience by satisfying the physiological visual cues. This can be accomplished by displaying images with depth information such as holograms. A hologram generator such as a Texas Instrument Phase Light Modulator (PLM) can coupled into multiple pupil replicating waveguides for a true AR experience by diffracting images toward different insertion holograms to project at different distances.”)
Further regarding claim 1, Yanusik discloses tapered redirection regions that enhance augmented reality display configurations. Yanusik figure 7 (a) and 3. Simulation (“[W] we designed the waveguide with pupil replication to transmit light in the range of 15°. … The waveguide included in-coupling, redirecting, and out-coupling gratings, as shown in Fig. 7(a)….The redirecting zone has a width of 368 mm with gradually increasing taper.”). Yanusik, Abstract: Augmented reality head-up displays (HUDs) require virtual-object distance matching to the real scene along an adequate field of view (FoV). At the same time, pupil-replication based waveguide systems provide a wide FoV while affording compact HUDs. … Thus, viewing zones for the left and right eyes in plane of the eyebox can be clearly observed. Finally, we discuss how the initial distance of the virtual image can be set for quantified fatigue-free 3D imaging, and an FoV can be further extended in such types of waveguide systems by varying parameters of the eyebox formation unit.”).
Yanusik – Figure 7(a)
PNG
media_image10.png
244
377
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Further regarding claim 1, Ronen discloses in figure 17, oppositely directed waveguides.
Ronen – Figure 17
PNG
media_image11.png
469
739
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Ronen – Selected Text
Abstract
An optical system provides two-stage expansion of an input optical aperture for a display based on a light-guide optical element. A first expansion is achieved using two distinct sets of mutually-parallel partially-reflecting surfaces, each set handing a different part of an overall field-of-view presented to the eye. In some cases, a single image projector provides image illumination to two sets of facets that are integrated into the LOE. In other cases, two separate projectors deliver image illumination corresponding to two different parts of the field-of-view to their respective sets of facets.
[0101] Referring to FIG. 17, there is shown an exemplary implementation of a system for light expansion 201 including two optical aperture expansion components 203L and 203R, integrated into a single slab element 203 for expanding the optical aperture of two image projectors 210, 220 for injection into an LOE (not shown in this view). The optical aperture expansion components expand the effective aperture of the two image projectors for subsequent injection into the LOE for display to a user. In the current figure, the view is from the edge of the optical aperture expansion components. The aperture expansion structures can be symmetric and can include mirrors on the sides, or more generally outside the field of view.
Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Thakur in figure of Draper, further in view of Yanusik, and further in view of Ronen to disclose: a head-up display having an eye-box having a first dimension and second dimension, the head-up display comprising: a display device having an exit pupil, the display device being configured to provide light corresponding to an image; and comprising a pair of first waveguides each of the first waveguides having a reflective surface and a opposed reflective- transmissive surface together defining a thickness, each of the first waveguides being arranged to receive diverging light corresponding to the image from the display device and to replicate the exit pupil of the display device in the first dimension of the eye-box to output a plurality of replicas of the light corresponding to the image from the reflective-transmissive surface by a series of reflections of light corresponding to the image between the reflective surface and the reflective- transmissive surface, wherein each reflection from the reflective-transmissive surface includes a partial transmission of light of the image forming one of the plurality of replicas, wherein each of the first waveguides e is elongated and tapered in the direction of elongation such that each of the first waveguides has a width perpendicular to each of the thickness and the direction of elongation at its input end that is narrower than a width perpendicular to each of the thickness and the direction of elongation at its output end, each of the first waveguides including a first lateral edge and an opposing second lateral edge that together define the taper, wherein the first waveguides are arranged so that their input ends are substantially proximate each other and their respective output ends are substantially distal from each other; Thakur, figure 3, and related figures and text; Draper – Figures 2.1-2.5, 3.1, 3.4, and 3.6, and related figures and text, for example, Draper – Selected Text; Yanusik, figure 7(a) and related figures and text; Ronen, figure 17, and related figures and text, for example, Ronen – Selected Text; because the resultant configuration would enhance augmented reality capabilities. Draper, Prospects (“Future work should focus on improving the holographic materials and waveguide quality in the case of a curved combiner, working with different geometries of waveguide combiners and improving augmented reality experience…. Another task is toward achieving a true augmented reality experience by satisfying the physiological visual cues. This can be accomplished by displaying images with depth information such as holograms. A hologram generator such as a Texas Instrument Phase Light Modulator (PLM) can coupled into multiple pupil replicating waveguides for a true AR experience by diffracting images toward different insertion holograms to project at different distances.”).
Regarding claims 2-4, 6-8, 12, and 17-26, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Thakur in figure of Draper, further in view of Yanusik, and further in view of Ronen, as applied in the rejection of claim 1, to disclose:
2. The head-up display as claimed in claim 1 wherein the first waveguides are arranged to provide pupil expansion in opposite directions of the first dimension. Thakur, figure 3, and related figures and text; Draper – Figures 2.1-2.5, 3.1, 3.4, and 3.6, and related figures and text, for example, Draper – Selected Text; Yanusik, figure 7(a) and related figures and text; Ronen, figure 17, and related figures and text, for example, Ronen – Selected Text.
3. The head-up display as claimed in claim 1 wherein the first waveguides have substantially the same length. Thakur, figure 3, and related figures and text; Draper – Figures 2.1-2.5, 3.1, 3.4, and 3.6, and related figures and text, for example, Draper – Selected Text; Yanusik, figure 7(a) and related figures and text; Ronen, figure 17, and related figures and text, for example, Ronen – Selected Text.
4. The head-up display as claimed in claim 1 wherein the first waveguides are arranged in a substantially planar configuration that is in a plane of propagation of pupil replicas formed by the pair of first waveguides. Thakur, figure 3, and related figures and text; Draper – Figures 2.1-2.5, 3.1, 3.4, and 3.6, and related figures and text, for example, Draper – Selected Text; Yanusik, figure 7(a) and related figures and text; Ronen, figure 17, and related figures and text, for example, Ronen – Selected Text.
6. The head-up display as claimed in claim 4 wherein the pair of first waveguides is tilted in order to reduce a size of the substantially planar configuration in a dimension of the widths of the first waveguides. Thakur, figure 3, and related figures and text; Draper – Figures 2.1-2.5, 3.1, 3.4, and 3.6, and related figures and text, for example, Draper – Selected Text; Yanusik, figure 7(a) and related figures and text; Ronen, figure 17, and related figures and text, for example, Ronen – Selected Text.
7. The head-up display as claimed in claim 1 wherein the pair of first waveguides are arranged in a configuration in which they are tapered in a same direction. Thakur, figure 3, and related figures and text; Draper – Figures 2.1-2.5, 3.1, 3.4, and 3.6, and related figures and text, for example, Draper – Selected Text; Yanusik, figure 7(a) and related figures and text; Ronen, figure 17, and related figures and text, for example, Ronen – Selected Text.
8. The head-up display as claimed in claim 1 wherein the input ends of the pair of first waveguides partially overlap in the first dimension. Thakur, figure 3, and related figures and text; Draper – Figures 2.1-2.5, 3.1, 3.4, and 3.6, and related figures and text, for example, Draper – Selected Text; Yanusik, figure 7(a) and related figures and text; Ronen, figure 17, and related figures and text, for example, Ronen – Selected Text.
12. The head-up display as claimed in claim 1 further comprising a second waveguide arranged to replicate the pupil in the second dimension of the eye-box, wherein the pair of first waveguides are optically coupled to the second waveguide so as to provide the plurality of replicas from each of the first waveguides to an input of the second waveguide. Thakur, figure 3, and related figures and text; Draper – Figures 2.1-2.5, 3.1, 3.4, and 3.6, and related figures and text, for example, Draper – Selected Text; Yanusik, figure 7(a) and related figures and text; Ronen, figure 17, and related figures and text, for example, Ronen – Selected Text.
21. The head-up display of claim 1, wherein the display device comprises a plurality of pixels. Thakur, figure 3, and related figures and text; Draper – Figures 2.1-2.5, 3.1, 3.4, and 3.6, and related figures and text, for example, Draper – Selected Text; Yanusik, figure 7(a) and related figures and text; Ronen, figure 17, and related figures and text, for example, Ronen – Selected Text.
22. The head-up display of claim 1, wherein the display device is a spatial light modulator. Thakur, figure 3, and related figures and text; Draper – Figures 2.1-2.5, 3.1, 3.4, and 3.6, and related figures and text, for example, Draper – Selected Text; Yanusik, figure 7(a) and related figures and text; Ronen, figure 17, and related figures and text, for example, Ronen – Selected Text.
23. A head-up display having an eye-box having a first dimension and second dimension, the head-up display comprising: a display device having an exit pupil, the display device being configured to provide light corresponding to an image; and comprising a pair of first waveguides, each of the first waveguides having a first surface and a second surface defining a thickness, each of the first waveguides being arranged to receive light corresponding to the image from the display device and to replicate the exit pupil of the display device in the first dimension of the eye-box to output a plurality of replicas of the light corresponding to the image from the second surface by a series of reflections of light corresponding to the image between the first surface and second surface, wherein each reflection cycle includes a partial transmission of light of the image forming one of the plurality of replicas, wherein each of the first waveguides is elongated and tapered in the direction of elongation such that each of the first waveguides has a width perpendicular to each of the thickness and the direction of elongation at a first end thereof that is narrower than a width perpendicular to each of the thickness and the direction of elongation at a second end thereof, each of the first waveguides including a first lateral edge and an opposing second lateral edge that together define the taper. Thakur, figure 3, and related figures and text; Draper – Figures 2.1-2.5, 3.1, 3.4, and 3.6, and related figures and text, for example, Draper – Selected Text; Yanusik, figure 7(a) and related figures and text; Ronen, figure 17, and related figures and text, for example, Ronen – Selected Text.
24. The head-up display of claim 23, wherein the light corresponding to the image is diverging to be received by each of the first waveguides is diverging, and wherein the light of the image is received by each of the first waveguide at a position proximate the first end thereof. Thakur, figure 3, and related figures and text; Draper – Figures 2.1-2.5, 3.1, 3.4, and 3.6, and related figures and text, for example, Draper – Selected Text; Yanusik, figure 7(a) and related figures and text; Ronen, figure 17, and related figures and text, for example, Ronen – Selected Text.
25. The head-up display of claim 23, wherein the first waveguides are arranged so that their respective first ends are substantially proximate each other and their respective second ends are substantially distal from each other. Thakur, figure 3, and related figures and text; Draper – Figures 2.1-2.5, 3.1, 3.4, and 3.6, and related figures and text, for example, Draper – Selected Text; Yanusik, figure 7(a) and related figures and text; Ronen, figure 17, and related figures and text, for example, Ronen – Selected Text.
26. A pupil expander for a head-up display, wherein the head-up display has an eye-box having a first dimension and second dimension, wherein the pupil expander comprises: a pair of first waveguides each arranged to replicate a pupil in the first dimension of the eye-box, wherein each waveguide is elongated and tapered in the direction of elongation such that its input end is narrower than its output end, and wherein the first waveguides are arranged so that their input ends are substantially proximate each other and their respective output ends are substantially distal from each other. Thakur, figure 3, and related figures and text; Draper – Figures 2.1-2.5, 3.1, 3.4, and 3.6, and related figures and text, for example, Draper – Selected Text; Yanusik, figure 7(a) and related figures and text; Ronen, figure 17, and related figures and text, for example, Ronen – Selected Text.
because the resultant configuration would enhance augmented reality capabilities. Draper, Prospects (“Future work should focus on improving the holographic materials and waveguide quality in the case of a curved combiner, working with different geometries of waveguide combiners and improving augmented reality experience…. Another task is toward achieving a true augmented reality experience by satisfying the physiological visual cues. This can be accomplished by displaying images with depth information such as holograms. A hologram generator such as a Texas Instrument Phase Light Modulator (PLM) can coupled into multiple pupil replicating waveguides for a true AR experience by diffracting images toward different insertion holograms to project at different distances.”).
Claims 9-11 and 13-15
Claims 9-11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thakur et al. (2019/0039515; “Thakur”) in view of Draper, Craig Thomas ( (2021). Holographic Curved Waveguide Combiner for HUD/AR, Master's thesis, University of Arizona, Tucson, USA; “Draper”), further in view of Yanusik et al. (“Pupil replication waveguide system for autostereoscopic imaging with a wide field of view, Opt. Express 29, 36287-36301 (2021); “Yanusik”), and further in view of Ronen et al. (2022/0075194; “Ronen”), as applied in the rejection of claims 1-4, 6-8, 12, and 17-26, and further in view of Connor, Robert A. (2019/0064526; “Connor”).
Regarding claims 9-11 and 13-15, Connor discloses in figures 3, 89, 90, 91, 95, and 96, and related figures and text, for example, Connor – Selected Text, augmented reality configurations comprising arrangements of tapered light-guiding configurations, for example, overlapping, commonly or opposingly directed, and transmissive and/or reflective, Connor, figures 89-91 and 95-96, which can be tilted, as disclosed in figure 3. Connor, figures 3, 89-91 and 95-96, and related figures and text, for example, Connor – Selected Text.
Connor – Figures 3, 89, 90, 91, 95, and 96
PNG
media_image12.png
314
460
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
302
461
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
672
504
media_image14.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image15.png
528
469
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 9-11 and 13-15, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Thakur in figure of Draper, further in view of Yanusik, and further in view of Ronen, as applied in the rejection of claims 1-4, 6-8, 12, and 17-26, to disclose:
9. The head-up display as claimed in claim 1 wherein the input ends of the pair of first waveguides are offset in a dimension of the widths of the first waveguides. Thakur, figure 3, and related figures and text; Draper – Figures 2.1-2.5, 3.1, 3.4, and 3.6, and related figures and text, for example, Draper – Selected Text; Yanusik, figure 7(a) and related figures and text; Ronen, figure 17, and related figures and text, for example, Ronen – Selected Text. Connor, figures 3, 89-91 and 95-96, and related figures and text, for example, Connor – Selected Text.
10. The head-up display as claimed in claim 9 wherein the offset is such that the output ends of the pair of first waveguides partially overlap in a dimension of the widths of the first waveguides. Thakur, figure 3, and related figures and text; Draper – Figures 2.1-2.5, 3.1, 3.4, and 3.6, and related figures and text, for example, Draper – Selected Text; Yanusik, figure 7(a) and related figures and text; Ronen, figure 17, and related figures and text, for example, Ronen – Selected Text. Connor, figures 3, 89-91 and 95-96, and related figures and text, for example, Connor – Selected Text.
11. The head-up display as claimed in claim 1 wherein input ports of the pair of first waveguides are spatially separated in a dimension of the widths of the first waveguides. Thakur, figure 3, and related figures and text; Draper – Figures 2.1-2.5, 3.1, 3.4, and 3.6, and related figures and text, for example, Draper – Selected Text; Yanusik, figure 7(a) and related figures and text; Ronen, figure 17, and related figures and text, for example, Ronen – Selected Text. Connor, figures 3, 89-91 and 95-96, and related figures and text, for example, Connor – Selected Text.
13. The head-up display as claimed in claim 11 further comprising an optical element, arranged to optically couple the output light of the first pair of waveguides into the second waveguide so as to provide the plurality of replicas from each of the first waveguides to an input of the second waveguide. Thakur, figure 3, and related figures and text; Draper – Figures 2.1-2.5, 3.1, 3.4, and 3.6, and related figures and text, for example, Draper – Selected Text; Yanusik, figure 7(a) and related figures and text; Ronen, figure 17, and related figures and text, for example, Ronen – Selected Text. Connor, figures 3, 89-91 and 95-96, and related figures and text, for example, Connor – Selected Text.
14. The head-up display as claimed in claim 11 wherein the pair of first waveguides are arranged in a substantially planar configuration that is substantially parallel to a plane of the second waveguide. Thakur, figure 3, and related figures and text; Draper – Figures 2.1-2.5, 3.1, 3.4, and 3.6, and related figures and text, for example, Draper – Selected Text; Yanusik, figure 7(a) and related figures and text; Ronen, figure 17, and related figures and text, for example, Ronen – Selected Text. Connor, figures 3, 89-91 and 95-96, and related figures and text, for example, Connor – Selected Text.
15. The head-up display as claimed in claim 11 wherein an input port to the second waveguide comprises a partially transmissive-partially reflective element. Thakur, figure 3, and related figures and text; Draper – Figures 2.1-2.5, 3.1, 3.4, and 3.6, and related figures and text, for example, Draper – Selected Text; Yanusik, figure 7(a) and related figures and text; Ronen, figure 17, and related figures and text, for example, Ronen – Selected Text. Connor, figures 3, 89-91 and 95-96, and related figures and text, for example, Connor – Selected Text.
because the resulting configurations and methods would facilitate designing, fabricating and deploying light and compact augmented reality displays characterized by improved performance. Connor, abstract (“This invention comprises novel optical structures for Augmented Reality (AR) eyewear which can potentially improve virtual image quality, reduce eyewear size, selectively mask environmental light, and enable multiple focal planes.”).
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 PETER RADKOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-1613. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5.
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 on (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.
/PETER RADKOWSKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights