DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This office action is in response to a reply filed 6/24/2026.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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.
Election/Restrictions
In the response of 6/24/2026 from applicant on the restriction requirement on 8/13/2025, applicant's election with traverse of Species 1 (claims 1-3, 5, 6, 10-12, 14-18 and 20). Hence claims 4, 7-9, 13 and 19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention and Group/species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. The traversal is on the ground(s) that species are not mutually exclusive and no burden on the prior art search. Applicants claim three distinct species of display systems, corresponding to different invention in instant specification disclosure.
For examples, Species 1-3 are related as processes of making and products made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). For example, in the instant case, the Species 1 and Species 2 may not include a projector having a scanning mirror as required in Species 3, the Species 1 and Species 3 may not having diffuser is transmissive as required in Species 2, and the Species 2 and Species 3 may not having diffuser is reflective as required in Species 1.
Further, because the embodiments of fig. 4 ( Species 2) and fig. 5 (Species 3) do not include a beamsplitter, unlike the embodiment of fig. 2 ( Species 1), claim 16, which recites the limitation of one viewing optic further comprising a beamsplitter, is directed only to species 1, and is not encompassed by Species 2 or Species 3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 10, 12, 14, 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kollin et al. (US20010000124).
Regarding claim 1, Kollin teaches a display system (figs. 1-3 and fig. 9, the retinal display 10; paragraph [0029] “the retinal display 10”), comprising:
a diffuser (see figs. 1-2 and fig. 9, diffuser 360, or called the exit pupil expanding apparatus 18; paragraph [0070] “FIG. 9 shows the light path through a diffuser 360 embodiment of the exit pupil expanding apparatus 18”) having a curved surface (paragraph [0070] “a curved surface 362 of the diffuser”);
a display device (see Kollin, fig. 3 has been referred to as a display device; paragraph [0015] “FIG. 3 is a block diagram of the image data interface, light source, and optics subsystem of FIG. 1”) positioned to emit light (paragraph [0037] “The light source 12”, “Exemplary light sources are colored lasers, laser diodes or light emitting diodes”) that is focused on the curved surface of the diffuser (see Kollin, fig. 9, the light 302 is focused on the curved surface 362 of the diffuser 360; paragraph [0030] “FIG. 2 shows deflection of light 19 along one axis. As the light 19 is deflected, the focal point moves. Over the course of scanning a raster pattern the focal points define the intermediate curved image plane 15”; paragraph [0031] “The exit pupil expanding apparatus 18 is positioned at the location where the intermediate curved image plane 15 is to occur”; thus, see Kollin, fig. 2 or fig. 9, the display device positioned to emit light that is focused on the curved surface of the diffuser 18, 360);
at least one viewing optic (fig. 2, fig. 9, eyepiece 20 has been referred to as at least one viewing optic; paragraph [0032] “eyepiece 20”); and
an eye box (fig. 2 , fig. 9, eye E has been referred to as an eye box; paragraph [0032] “eyepiece 20 at a location where a viewer positions the pupil of their eye E”; paragraph [0074] “The components of the retinal display 10 can be made small, compact and lightweight so as to embody a hand-held display or to be mounted on a viewer's head”);
wherein:
the light (fig. 9, light 302) focused on the curved surface of the diffuser (fig. 9, diffuser 360) has a first cone angle (paragraph [0071] “the angle at which light 302”) and is diffused by the diffuser such that light output (fig. 9, light 364) from the diffuser (360) has a second cone angle (paragraph [0071] “the angle of light 364 exiting the diffuser”);
the second cone angle is larger than the first cone angle (see Kollin, paragraph [0071] “the angle of light 364 exiting the diffuser is larger than the angle at which light 302 enters the diffuser”) and
the light output (fig. 9, light 364) from the diffuser (fig. 9, 360) propagates through the at least one viewing optic (20) to the eye box (eye E).
Regarding claim 2, Kollin discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and Kollin further teaches wherein the diffuser is reflective (see paragraph [0070] “the diffuser 360 is a reflective diffuser”).
Regarding claim 5, Kollin discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and Kollin further teaches wherein the light emitted from the display device (Kollin, fig. 3, the display device) and focused on the curved surface of the diffuser (fig. 2, fig.9, the diffuser 18, 360) forms an intermediate image (see fig. 2. the intermediate curved image plane 15 has been referred to as an intermediate image) on the curved surface of the diffuser (see fig. 2, fig. 9, paragraph [0070] “the intermediate curved image plane 15 scanned by the scanning subsystem 16 coincides with a curved surface 362 of the diffuser”).
Regarding claim 6, Kollin discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and further teaches wherein the light that propagates through the at least one viewing optic forms a final image that is viewable at the eye box (see paragraph [0034] “short time after the imaging of point 25, the scanning subsystem 16 deflects light 19 to another focal point on the intermediate curved image plane 15. As a result, the exit pupil 21′ occurs. Exit pupil 21′ corresponds to exit pupil 21 and occurs at approximately the same 3-dimensional position relative to the eyepiece 20”, thus, the light that propagates through the at least one viewing optic 20 forms a final image that is viewable at the eye box, eye E).
Regarding claim 10, Kollin discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and further teaches wherein the display device comprises at least one of a light-emitting diode (LED) display or a μLED display (see paragraph [0037] “light emitting diodes (LEDs). referring to FIG. 3”).
Regarding claim 12, Kollin discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and Kollin further teaches wherein the intermediate image (15) is formed on a concave surface of the diffuser (see Kollin, fig. 2, fig. 9, the intermediate image 15 is formed on a concave surface of the diffuser 18, 360).
Regarding claim 14, Kollin discloses the invention as described in Claim 12 and Kollin further teaches wherein the concave surface of the diffuser is reflective (see Kollin, fig. 9, paragraph [0070] “the diffuser 360 is a reflective diffuser”; thus, the concave surface of the diffuser 362 is reflective); and
the light forming the intermediate image (15) on the concave surface of the diffuser (362) is reflected from the reflective surface of the diffuser (see fig. 9 and paragraph [0070]. Because diffuser 360 is a reflective diffuser, light incident on the reflective concave surface 362, including the light forming the intermediate image thereon, is reflected from the reflective surface of the diffuser 362).
(note: the limitations of “the light forming ...on…is reflected from…” in the claim is product by process limitations, and don’t impart any requirement on the product itself other than what is already structurally claimed, See MPEP 2173.05(p) sec. II))
Regarding claim 17, Kollin teaches a display system(figs. 1-3 and fig. 9, the retinal display 10; paragraph [0029] “the retinal display 10”), comprising:
a diffuser (see figs. 1-2 and fig. 9, diffuser 360, or called the exit pupil expanding apparatus 18; paragraph [0070] “FIG. 9 shows the light path through a diffuser 360 embodiment of the exit pupil expanding apparatus 18”) having a curved surface (paragraph [0070] “a curved surface 362 of the diffuser”); and
a display device positioned to emit light that is focused on the curved surface of the diffuser (see Kollin, fig. 3 has been referred to as a display device; paragraph [0015] “FIG. 3 is a block diagram of the image data interface, light source, and optics subsystem of FIG. 1”) positioned to emit light (paragraph [0037] “The light source 12”, “Exemplary light sources are colored lasers, laser diodes or light emitting diodes”) that is focused on the curved surface of the diffuser (see Kollin, fig. 9, the light 302 is focused on the curved surface 362 of the diffuser 360; described in paragraph [0030]), wherein:
the light (fig. 9, light 302) focused on the curved surface of the diffuser (fig. 9, diffuser 360) has a first cone angle (paragraph [0071] “the angle at which light 302”) and is diffused by the diffuser such that light output (fig. 9, light 364) from the diffuser (360) has a second cone angle (paragraph [0071] “the angle of light 364 exiting the diffuser”); and
the second cone angle is larger than the first cone angle (see Kollin, paragraph [0071] “the angle of light 364 exiting the diffuser is larger than the angle at which light 302 enters the diffuser”).
Regarding claim 18, Kollin discloses the invention as described in Claim 17 and Kollin further teaches wherein the diffuser is reflective (see paragraph [0070] “the diffuser 360 is a reflective diffuser”).
Regarding claim 20, Kollin teaches a method (figs. 1-3 and fig. 9, paragraph [0002] “This invention relates to retinal display devices, and more particularly to optical configurations for retinal display devices and a method and apparatus for defining an exit pupil through which a user views an image”), comprising:
positioning a display device (see Kollin, fig. 3 has been referred to as a display device; paragraph [0015] “FIG. 3 is a block diagram of the image data interface, light source, and optics subsystem of FIG. 1”);
positioning a curved diffuser (see Kollin, figs. 1-2 and fig. 9, diffuser 360, or called the exit pupil expanding apparatus 18; paragraph [0070] “FIG. 9 shows the light path through a diffuser 360 embodiment of the exit pupil expanding apparatus 18”) so that light emitted (paragraph [0037] “The light source 12”, “Exemplary light sources are colored lasers, laser diodes or light emitting diodes”) from the display device (fig. 3, the display device) is focused on a concave surface of the curved diffuser (see Kollin, fig. 9, the light 302 is focused on concave surface 362 of the curved diffuser 360); and
positioning viewing optics (figs.1-2, and fig. 9, eyepiece 20) so that light output (fig. 9, light 364) from the curved diffuser (fig. 9, diffuser 360) is directed to an eye box (figs. 1-2, and fig. 9, eye E has been referred to as an eye box) of the display system (figs. 1-2, the retinal display 10).
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.
Claims 3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Kollin et al. (US20010000124), and further in view of Agostinelli et al. (US20040017546).
Regarding claim 3, Kollin discloses the invention as described in Claim 2, but Kollin does not explicitly disclose wherein further comprising a beamsplitter positioned between the diffuser and the eye box, wherein:
the light emitted from the display device is reflected from a surface of the beamsplitter toward the curved surface of the diffuser, and
the light output from the diffuser transmits through the beamsplitter.
However, Agostinelli teaches the analogous display system (Agostinelli, abstract, “a substantially monocentric arrangement of optical components providing a multicolor stereoscopic display having an expanded color gamut. A virtual image is electronically generated by an image generation system (70) having four or more color light sources (20) and is projected, as a real intermediate image, near the focal surface (22) of a curved mirror (24) by means of a scanning ball lens assembly (100)”), and further teaches
wherein further comprising a beamsplitter (Agostinelli, fig. 1, beamsplitter 16; paragraph [0092] “a beamsplitter 16”) positioned between the diffuser (see annotated image, Agostinelli, fig. 1, curved mirror 24 has been referred to as the diffuser) and the eye box (fig. 1, observer 12 has been referred to as the eye box; paragraph [0092] “a beamsplitter 16 which is interposed between observer 12 and a curved mirror 24”), wherein:
the light emitted (see annotated image, Agostinelli, fig. 1,the light) from the display device (see annotated image, Agostinelli, fig. 1, display device; paragraph [0092] “a left image generation system 70l”) is reflected from a surface of the beamsplitter (see annotated image, Agostinelli, fig. 1, surface of the beamsplitter) toward the curved surface of the diffuser (see annotated image, Agostinelli, fig. 1,), and
the light output (see annotated image, Agostinelli, fig. 1, light output) from the diffuser (see annotated image, Agostinelli, fig. 1, diffuser) transmits through the beamsplitter (16).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Kollin to have the specific beamsplitter as taught by Agostinelli for the purpose to improve autostereoscopic imaging solution for viewing images having an expanded color gamut, where the solution provides a structurally simple apparatus, minimizes aberrations and image distortion, and meets demanding requirements for wide field of view, large pupil size, high brightness, and lowered cost (Agostinelli, paragraph [0040]).
PNG
media_image1.png
570
805
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Kollin discloses the invention as described in Claim 1, but Kollin does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one viewing optic further comprises a beamsplitter.
However, Agostinelli teaches the analogous display system (Agostinelli, abstract, “a substantially monocentric arrangement of optical components providing a multicolor stereoscopic display having an expanded color gamut. A virtual image is electronically generated by an image generation system (70) having four or more color light sources (20) and is projected, as a real intermediate image, near the focal surface (22) of a curved mirror (24) by means of a scanning ball lens assembly (100)”), and further teaches
wherein the at least one viewing optic (Agostinelli, fig. 1, beamsplitter 16 has been referred to as one viewing optic) further comprises a beamsplitter (Agostinelli, fig. 1, beamsplitter 16; paragraph [0092] “a beamsplitter 16”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Kollin to have the specific beamsplitter as taught by Agostinelli for the purpose to improve autostereoscopic imaging solution for viewing images having an expanded color gamut, where the solution provides a structurally simple apparatus, minimizes aberrations and image distortion, and meets demanding requirements for wide field of view, large pupil size, high brightness, and lowered cost (Agostinelli, paragraph [0040]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Kollin et al. (US20010000124), and further in view of Son et al. (US20180136468).
Regarding claim 11, Kollin discloses the invention as described in Claim 1, Kollin does not explicitly disclose wherein the display device comprises at least one of a laser projector or an LED projector.
However, Son teaches the analogous display system (Son, abstract, the freeform projection display further may include a light modulator disposed between the optical emitter and the optical diffuser), and further teaches
wherein the display device (see Son, fig. 1, optical emitter 101 has been referred to as the display device) comprises at least one of a laser projector or an LED projector (see Son, paragraph [0012], a scanning laser projector; paragraph [0012] “optical emitter 101, e.g., a scanning laser projector is focused such that the depth of focus is large enough to accommodate the sag of the freeform shaped optical diffuser 107”).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Kollin to have the specific projector as taught by Son for the purpose to provide systems and methods to reduce design constraints of an optical combiner that otherwise would require a flat display panel (Son, paragraph [0009]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Kollin et al. (US20010000124), and further in view of Shimoda et al. (JP2005024720A, English translation attached).
Regarding claim 15, Kollin discloses the invention as described in Claim 14, Kollin does not explicitly disclose wherein the light forming the intermediate image on the concave surface of the diffuser is diffused through a layer coating the reflective surface of the diffuser.
However, Shimoda teaches the analogous reflective surface of the diffuser (Shimoda, paragraph [0010] “image light in a specific wavelength region projected from the front is reflected by the selective reflective film and diffused by the diffuse layer”), and further teaches
wherein the light (see Shimoda, figs. 1-5, paragraphs[0024]-[0038]; projected light Lp) forming the intermediate image (see Shimoda, figs. 1-5, paragraph [0005],“Screens applied to such projectors include reflective screens that reflect the image light projected from the projector, allowing the projected image to be viewed by the reflected light”; paragraph [0024],“diffusion layer 4 that diffuses the light reflected from the selective reflective film 3”; thus, in figs. 1-5 having the light forming the intermediate image on the diffusion layer 4) on the concave surface of the diffuser (see Shimoda, figs. 1-5, screen 1 has been referred to as the diffuser) is diffused through a layer (figs. 1-5, selective reflective film 3 has been referred to as a layer) coating the reflective surface of the diffuser (see Shimoda, paragraph [0010], “image light in a specific wavelength region projected from the front is reflected by the selective reflective film 3 and diffused by the diffuse layer 4 to a predetermined scattering angle range”; paragraph [0018] “front surface is curved in a concave”; thus, having the light forming the intermediate image on the concave surface of the diffuse layer 4 is diffused through the selective reflective film 3).
(note: the limitations of “the light forming…on… is diffused through… coating..” in the claim is product by process limitations, and don’t impart any requirement on the product itself other than what is already structurally claimed, See MPEP 2173.05(p) sec. II))
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Kollin to have the specific layer as taught by Shimoda for the purpose to provide a screen that achieves high brightness and high contrast without causing brightness unevenness (Shimoda, paragraph [0008]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tabata et al. (US5757544) discloses a diffuser having a curved surface similar in structure to the claimed invention. Chen (US20230050692) discloses a diffuser having a curved surface similar in structure to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUEI-JEN LEE EDENFIELD whose telephone number is (571)272-3005. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. -Thurs 8:00 am - 5:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pinping Sun can be reached on (571) 270-1284. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273- 8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published application may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Services Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199(In USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/KUEI-JEN L EDENFIELD/
Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights