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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 5-8, 10-11, 13, 19-24, and 26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/08/2025.
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, 4, 9, 12, 14, 16, 18, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bignolles (US 20110255174 A1) in view of Tatsuno (US 20120162753 A1).
Re Claim 1, Bignolles discloses, on Fig. 2, an optical projection assembly for directing a first image from a first source (source 1) to an eyebox of a user (head of user H) and combined with light from a second source (HUD is projected on landscape, so landscape provides second source of light) [Par 5 and 18-19] comprising: a relay optic (relay optic 10) [Par 5] comprising a plurality of refractive component (lenses of relay optic 10) arranged to receive the first image; and a tilted, partially reflective combiner (combiner 20, projects on the user’s vision a HUD and this is partially reflective) [Par 18] with positive optical power (combiner 20 is a concave mirror with positive focal power) comprising a first surface (landscape facing side of combiner 20) arranged in a tilted or decentered fashion (Combiner 20 is decentered ) with respect to a received light from the second source for transmitting the light received from the second source to the eyebox (combiner 20 is tilted in the view of the user H of the landscape), and a second surface (reflective, user facing side of combiner 20) opposite the first surface arranged to receive and project the first image from the relay optic and transmit the light received from the second source (light from landscape is transmitted and light from source 1 is reflected) [Par 18-19] ; and wherein the plurality of refractive components are configured to reduce a perceivable aberration of the first image introduced by the combiner ( “architectures employed to correct geometric aberrations comprise highly prismatic components”) [Par 5-8].
But Bignolles does not explicitly disclose, wherein a plurality of refractive components are gradient-index (GRIN) components.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Tatsuno teaches, on Fig. 6a and 10B-10C, that it is desirable in projection systems to include a plurality of refractive components to gradient-index (GRIN) components (Aspheric plastic lenses 19c and 19d have refractive index distributions ) [Par 56].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Bignolles with Tatsuno in order to provide, to cancel out the refractive index distribution that occurs during plastic lens shaping, as taught by Tatsuno [Par 5 and 58].
Re Claim 2, Bignolles in view of Tatsuno discloses, the optical projection assembly of claim 1, and Tatsuno further discloses on Fig. 6A, wherein the plurality of refractive GRIN components consists of two gradient-index components (lenses 19c and 19d have index distributions) [Par 56].
Re Claim 4, Bignolles in view of Tatsuno discloses, the optical projection assembly of claim 1.
But Bignolles in view of Tatsuno does not explicitly disclose, wherein: each of the plurality of refractive GRIN components has a non-rotationally symmetric distribution of refractive index.
However, Tatsuno further discloses, on Fig. 10 and in alternative embodiment of Fig. 11 wherein: each of the plurality of refractive GRIN components has a non-rotationally symmetric distribution of refractive index (Fig. 10: index distribution of 19d is not rotationally symmetric, Fig. 11: lens 19c or 19d can be altered to only be the bottom half of the lens which makes them non-rotationally symmetric as lenses 29c and 29d) [Par 64-65].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Bignolles in view of Tatsuno, in order to provide reduced sized of the projective device, as taught by Tatsuno [Par 64-65].
Re Claim 9, Bignolles in view of Tatsuno discloses, the optical projection assembly of claim 1, and Tatsuno further discloses on Fig. 10a, wherein outer surfaces of each of the plurality of refractive GRIN components (outer surfaces of lens 50 and 60 which correspond to lenses 19c and 19d) share a common optical axis (axis ‘center’).
But Bignolles in view of Tatsuno does not explicitly disclose wherein said optical axis is an axis of symmetry.
However, Tatsuno teaches the fine control of the refractive index distribution of lenses 50 and 60 (see Fig. 10a, “the refractive index distribution such that the refractive index becomes higher as the position moves from the center of the lens 19c to the peripheral portion of the lens 19c) may be similar to the refractive index distribution of the lens 19d between the center of the lens 19d and the peripheral portion of the lens 19d”) [Par 58-61]. One ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of adjusting the index gradient of lens 60 (lens 19d) such that it shared an axis of symmetry with lens 50 (lens 19c). Further one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to better control, or to better cancel the affects of heat on the index of refraction gradient [Par 60-61].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Bignolles in view of Tatsuno, in order to better cancel the affects of heat on the index of refraction gradient, as taught by Tatsuno [Par 60-61].
Re Claim 12, Bignolles discloses, on Fig. 2, a method for manufacturing an optical projection assembly configured to combine received external light with a projected image from an electronic display (source 1, and HUD is projected on landscape, so landscape provides second source of light) [Par 5 and 18-19]at an eyebox of a user (head of user H), comprising steps of: providing a relay optic comprising a plurality of components (relay optic 10) [Par 5]; arranging the electronic display at a focal plane of the relay optic (source 1 projects onto relay optic 10); arranging a mirror (unlabeled mirror of Fig. 2 which reflects image light onto combiner 20) to receive and reflect an image from the relay optic; arranging a partially reflective combiner with positive optical power (combiner 20 is a concave mirror with positive focal power) comprising a first surface (landscape facing side of combiner 20) in a tilted or decentered fashion with respect to an external light to transmit the external light to the eyebox (combiner 20 is tilted in the view of the user H of the landscape), and a second surface (reflective, user facing side of combiner 20) opposite the first surface arranged to receive and project the image received from the relay optic via the mirror (light from landscape is transmitted and light from source 1 is reflected) [Par 18-19].
But Bignolles does not explicitly disclose, wherein a relay optic comprising a plurality of gradient-index (GRIN) components.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Tatsuno teaches, on Fig. 6a and 10B-10C, that it is desirable in projection systems, to include a relay optic comprising a plurality of gradient-index (GRIN) components. (Aspheric plastic lenses 19c and 19d have refractive index distributions ) [Par 56].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Bignolles with Tatsuno in order to provide, to cancel out the refractive index distribution that occurs during plastic lens shaping, as taught by Tatsuno [Par 5 and 58].
Re Claim 14, Bignolles in view of Tatsuno discloses, the method of claim 12, and Tatsuno further discloses on Fig. 6A, wherein the plurality of refractive GRIN components consists of two gradient-index components (lenses 19c and 19d have index distributions) [Par 56].
Re Claim 16, Bignolles discloses, on Fig. 2, an optical projection assembly for directing a first image from a first source (source 1) to an eyebox of a user (head of user H) and combined with light from a second source (HUD is projected on landscape, so landscape provides second source of light) [Par 5 and 18-19] comprising: a relay optic (relay optic 10) [Par 5] comprising a plurality of refractive component (lenses of relay optic 10) arranged to receive the first image; and a tilted, partially reflective combiner (combiner 20, projects on the user’s vision a HUD and this is partially reflective) [Par 18] with positive optical power (combiner 20 is a concave mirror with positive focal power) comprising a first surface (landscape facing side of combiner 20) arranged in a tilted fashion (Combiner 20 is decentered ) with respect to a received light from the second source for transmitting the light received from the second source to the eyebox (combiner 20 is tilted in the view of the user H of the landscape), and a second surface (reflective, user facing side of combiner 20) opposite the first surface arranged to receive and project the first image from the relay optic and transmit the light received from the second source (light from landscape is transmitted and light from source 1 is reflected) [Par 18-19] ; and wherein the refractive component is configured to reduce a perceivable aberration of the first image introduced by the combiner ( “architectures employed to correct geometric aberrations comprise highly prismatic components”) [Par 5-8].
But Bignolles does not explicitly disclose, wherein a refractive component which is a gradient-index (GRIN) components.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Tatsuno teaches, on Fig. 6a and 10B-10C, that it is desirable in projection systems to include a plurality of refractive components to gradient-index (GRIN) components (Aspheric plastic lenses 19c and 19d have refractive index distributions ) [Par 56].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Bignolles with Tatsuno in order to provide, to cancel out the refractive index distribution that occurs during plastic lens shaping, as taught by Tatsuno [Par 5 and 58].
Re Claim 18, Bignolles in view of Tatsuno discloses, the optical projection assembly of claim 16.
But Bignolles in view of Tatsuno does not explicitly disclose, wherein: each of the plurality of refractive GRIN components has a non-rotationally symmetric distribution of refractive index.
However, Tatsuno further discloses, on Fig. 10 and in alternative embodiment of Fig. 11 wherein: each of the plurality of refractive GRIN components has a non-rotationally symmetric distribution of refractive index (Fig. 10: index distribution of 19d is not rotationally symmetric, Fig. 11: lens 19c or 19d can be altered to only be the bottom half of the lens which makes them non-rotationally symmetric as lenses 29c and 29d) [Par 64-65].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Bignolles in view of Tatsuno, in order to provide reduced sized of the projective device, as taught by Tatsuno [Par 64-65].
Re Claim 25, Bignolles discloses, on Fig. 2, a method for manufacturing an optical projection assembly configured to combine received external light with a projected image from an electronic display (source 1, and HUD is projected on landscape, so landscape provides second source of light) [Par 5 and 18-19]at an eyebox of a user (head of user H), comprising steps of: providing a relay optic comprising a component (relay optic 10) [Par 5]; arranging the electronic display at a focal plane of the relay optic (source 1 projects onto relay optic 10); arranging a mirror (unlabeled mirror of Fig. 2 which reflects image light onto combiner 20) to receive and reflect an image from the relay optic; arranging a partially reflective combiner with positive optical power (combiner 20 is a concave mirror with positive focal power) comprising a first surface (landscape facing side of combiner 20) in a tilted fashion with respect to an external light to transmit the external light to the eyebox (combiner 20 is tilted in the view of the user H of the landscape), and a second surface (reflective, user facing side of combiner 20) opposite the first surface arranged to receive and project the image received from the relay optic via the mirror (light from landscape is transmitted and light from source 1 is reflected) [Par 18-19].
But Bignolles does not explicitly disclose, wherein a relay optic comprising a plurality of gradient-index (GRIN) components.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Tatsuno teaches, on Fig. 6a and 10B-10C, that it is desirable in projection systems, to include a relay optic comprising a plurality of gradient-index (GRIN) components. (Aspheric plastic lenses 19c and 19d have refractive index distributions ) [Par 56].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Bignolles with Tatsuno in order to provide, to cancel out the refractive index distribution that occurs during plastic lens shaping, as taught by Tatsuno [Par 5 and 58].
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bignolles in view of Tatsuno as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Williams (US 9903984 B1).
Re Claim 3, Bignolles in view of Tatsuno discloses, the optical projection assembly of claim 1.
But Bignolles in view of Tatsuno does not explicitly disclose, wherein at least one of the plurality of refractive GRIN components comprises a doublet further comprising a glass lens backed by a GRIN plate.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Williams teaches, on Fig. 8a, that it is desirable in lens systems for, at least one of the plurality of refractive GRIN components (optical element 100a) comprises a doublet further comprising a glass lens (glass substrate 102) backed by a GRIN plate (bulk non composite 104 with nanofiller 106 to form refractive gradients) [Col 10, Lines 40-50].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Bignolles in view of Tatsuno with Williams, in order to provide, chromatic and geometric aberration correction as taught by Williams [Col 10, Lines 40-60].
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bignolles in view of Tatsuno as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Williams (US 9903984 B1).
Re Claim 15, Bignolles in view of Tatsuno discloses, the method of claim 12.
But Bignolles in view of Tatsuno does not explicitly disclose, wherein at least one of the plurality of refractive GRIN components comprises a doublet further comprising a glass lens backed by a GRIN plate.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Williams teaches, on Fig. 8a, that it is desirable in lens systems for, at least one of the plurality of refractive GRIN components (optical element 100a) comprises a doublet further comprising a glass lens (glass substrate 102) backed by a GRIN plate (bulk non composite 104 with nanofiller 106 to form refractive gradients) [Col 10, Lines 40-50].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Bignolles in view of Tatsuno with Williams, in order to provide, chromatic and geometric aberration correction as taught by Williams [Col 10, Lines 40-60].
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bignolles in view of Tatsuno as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Williams (US 9903984 B1).
Re Claim 17, Bignolles in view of Tatsuno discloses, the optical projection assembly of claim 16.
But Bignolles in view of Tatsuno does not explicitly disclose, wherein at least one of the plurality of refractive GRIN components comprises a doublet further comprising a glass lens backed by a GRIN plate.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Williams teaches, on Fig. 8a, that it is desirable in lens systems for, at least one of the plurality of refractive GRIN components (optical element 100a) comprises a doublet further comprising a glass lens (glass substrate 102) backed by a GRIN plate (bulk non composite 104 with nanofiller 106 to form refractive gradients) [Col 10, Lines 40-50].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Bignolles in view of Tatsuno with Williams, in order to provide, chromatic and geometric aberration correction as taught by Williams [Col 10, Lines 40-60].
Claim(s) 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bignolles in view of Tatsuno as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of Williams (US 9903984 B1).
Re Claim 27, Bignolles in view of Tatsuno discloses, the method of claim 25.
But Bignolles in view of Tatsuno does not explicitly disclose, wherein at least one of the plurality of refractive GRIN components comprises a doublet further comprising a glass lens backed by a GRIN plate.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Williams teaches, on Fig. 8a, that it is desirable in lens systems for, at least one of the plurality of refractive GRIN components (optical element 100a) comprises a doublet further comprising a glass lens (glass substrate 102) backed by a GRIN plate (bulk non composite 104 with nanofiller 106 to form refractive gradients) [Col 10, Lines 40-50].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Bignolles in view of Tatsuno with Williams, in order to provide, chromatic and geometric aberration correction as taught by Williams [Col 10, Lines 40-60].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Togino (US 5768025 A) teaches a reflective optical system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAY ALEXANDER DEAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571)-272-2713. 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.
/RAY ALEXANDER DEAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872