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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the Examiner that the rejection of Claims 1-4, 9, 12, 14-18, 25, and 27 utilizes impermissible hindsight bias to combine the teachings of Bignolles and Tatsuno, because the advantages cited by Tatsuno would not be apparent to Bignolles, and the advantages cited in the Instant Application would not be apparent to either Bignolles or Tatsuno. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Tatsuno explicitly teaches the motivation to incorporate GRIN components in optics to correct index of undesirable refractive index distributions that occur during plastic lens shaping [Par 5 and 58]. The Examiner would also like to clarify that these “undesirable index of refraction distributions”, would inherently also introduce an undesirable aberration profile in the refracted image (This all but explicitly described by Tatsuno, “index distribution…cause field curvature”) [Par 22], because the definition of “index of refraction” is derived from the relationship between the reflection angle or distribution of refracted image light (aberration), as it travels between materials. Thus, the fact that the motivation of correcting undesirable refractive index distributions, is present in the prior art would necessarily require that the one of ordinary skill in the art know that a GRIN can correct the aberration profile of refracted image light because this motivation, cited by Tatsuno, is to specifically correct the unintended aberration profile cause by said undesirable refractive index distributions.
Therefore the rejection of Claims 1-4, 9, 12, 14-18, 25, is sustained.
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 one or more 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 one or more 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 one or more 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 one or more 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 one or more 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 one or more 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 one or more 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 one or more 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 one or more 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 one or more 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 one or more 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 one or more 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 one or more 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 one or more 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 one or more 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 one or more 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 one or more 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 one or more 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 one or more 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 one or more 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 one or more 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 one or more 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 one or more 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 one or more 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 one or more 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 one or more 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.
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 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
Prosecution Insights