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 .
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.
Disposition of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waldern (US 12248150 B2, effectively filed 2021 or earlier) in view of Lee (US 20150362708 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Waldern explicitly shows a volume holographic optical element projection system (Figs. 1, having light source 101, panel 102, projection optics 103, and Figs. 24 and 39 providing further detail of the cited general configuration), comprising:
a projection lens (103) comprising a light incident side (1002), a light emitting side (1003) having a plurality of lenses (378A, 378B);
a polarizing beam splitter (C. 9, ll. 60 con’t C. 10, ll. Ll. 1, “In some embodiments, the IIN contains beamsplitter for directing light onto the microdisplay … In some embodiments, the beam splitter is a polarizing beam splitter cube”);
a liquid crystal on silicon panel (C. 10, ll. 21-25, “In some embodiments, the light from the light source 101 is polarized. In one or more embodiments, the image source is a liquid crystal display (LCD) micro display or liquid crystal on silicon (LCoS) micro display”); and
a volume holographic optical element (105A, 105B, etc.; C. 10, ll. 35-37, “The input grating, fold grating and the output grating are holographic gratings, such as a switchable or non-switchable SBG”, Bragg gratings being a synonym for a volume hologram), wherein the light emitting side of the projection lens faces the volume holographic optical element (IIN emitting light 1003 toward 105A as in Fig. 1).
Waldern indicates the importance of maximizing light efficiency between the projection optics and the waveguide coupling, i.e. volume holographic optical element (C. 13, ll. 15 – 60).
Waldern does not explicitly show that the projection lens comprises nine lenses, wherein a f-number of the projection lens is in a range from 1 to 3, and the f-number is a value derived from dividing a focal length by an entrance pupil diameter, or the liquid crystal on silicon panel comprising a protection glass, wherein the polarizing beam splitter is located between the light incident side of the projection lens and the protection glass of the liquid crystal on silicon panel.
However, Lee explicitly shows that the projection lens comprises nine lenses (Fig. 1), wherein a f-number of the projection lens is in a range from 1 to 3 (Table 1), and the f-number is a value derived from dividing a focal length by an entrance pupil diameter (by definition), and the image source (IS1) comprising a protection glass (CG), wherein the prism (P11; note that a polarizing beam splitter is a particular type of prism) is located between the light incident side of the projection lens (S119) and the protection glass (CG) of the image source (IS1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the projection lens configuration of Lee to implement the projection system of Waldern and thus maximized light efficiency between the projection optics and the volume holographic optical element.
Regarding claim 8, the modified Waldern teaches the volume holographic optical element projection system of claim 1, but does not explicitly show wherein the material of each of the nine lenses is glass.
Official Notice is taken that glass is a well known suitable material for lenses, e.g. from Galileo. It has been held that selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 9, the modified Waldern teaches the volume holographic optical element projection system of claim 1, but does not explicitly show wherein each of the nine lenses is a spherical lens.
Lenses having spherical surfaces are exceptionally well known in the cited art (Lee, Table 1 and Table 2, showing that 80% of the lenses are spherical lenses), and Official Notice is taken that spherical lenses, having been known since Galileo, Gauss, etc. are among the simplest and most inexpensive lenses to manufacture.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented the projection lenses of the modified Waldern using spherical surfaces for the purpose of simplifying manufacture and thus reducing the cost.
Claims 2, 3, 11, 14, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waldern (US 12248150 B2, effectively filed 2021 or earlier) in view of Lee (US 20150362708 A1), Cheng (US 20190377185 A1), and Liu (US 20210239981 A1).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Waldern teaches the volume holographic optical element projection system of claim 1, but explicitly show wherein the nine lenses of the projection lens comprises a first lens, the first lens is adjacent to the light emitting side (Lee, Fig. 1 and Table 1), but does not explicitly show the projection lens further comprises: an aperture proximate to a surface of the first lens facing the light emitting side.
Regarding the aperture stop, Cheng teaches an analogous LCoS projection system (Fig. 1) where the aperture stop (ST) is at the incident end of the waveguide element (110), i.e. the emitting end of the projection lens (140), and Liu teaches that the aperture stop and entrance pupil diameter in such devices are equal (¶64).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the projection lens configuration of Lee to implement the projection system of Waldern according to the teachings of Cheng and Liu, and thereby maximized light efficiency between the projection optics and the volume holographic optical element.
Regarding claim 3, the modified Waldern teaches the volume holographic optical element projection system of claim 2, but does not explicitly show wherein a diameter of the aperture is in a range from 13.5 mm to 14.5 mm.
However, configuration of the aperture stop and the setting of its size with respect to the entrance pupil is known from the prior art as cited above. It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions. In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929). See also MPEP 2144.05 II. A. Therefore variation of the diameter of the aperture would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention toward fulfilling the motivation of Waldern concerning maximizing light efficiency.
Regarding claim 11, Waldern explicitly shows a volume holographic optical element projection system (Figs. 1, having light source 101, panel 102, projection optics 103, and Figs. 24 and 39 providing further detail of the cited general configuration), comprising:
a projection lens (103) comprising a light incident side (1002), a light emitting side (1003) having a plurality of lenses (378A, 378B);
a polarizing beam splitter (C. 9, ll. 60 con’t C. 10, ll. Ll. 1, “In some embodiments, the IIN contains beamsplitter for directing light onto the microdisplay … In some embodiments, the beam splitter is a polarizing beam splitter cube”);
a liquid crystal on silicon panel (C. 10, ll. 21-25, “In some embodiments, the light from the light source 101 is polarized. In one or more embodiments, the image source is a liquid crystal display (LCD) micro display or liquid crystal on silicon (LCoS) micro display”); and
a volume holographic optical element (105A, 105B, etc.; C. 10, ll. 35-37, “The input grating, fold grating and the output grating are holographic gratings, such as a switchable or non-switchable SBG”, Bragg gratings being a synonym for a volume hologram), wherein the light emitting side of the projection lens faces the volume holographic optical element (IIN emitting light 1003 toward 105A as in Fig. 1).
Waldern indicates the importance of maximizing light efficiency between the projection optics and the waveguide coupling, i.e. volume holographic optical element, largely by carefully controlling the numerical aperture (C. 13, ll. 15 – 60), which is closely and directly related to f-number, both of which are defined in terms of aperture diameter.
Waldern does not explicitly show the projection lens comprising nine lenses, wherein a f-number of the projection lens is in a range from 1 to 3, and the f-number is a value derived from dividing a focal length by an entrance pupil diameter, or the liquid crystal on silicon panel comprising a protection glass, wherein the polarizing beam splitter is located between the light incident side of the projection lens and the protection glass of the liquid crystal on silicon panel or an aperture located adjacent to the light emitting side, wherein a diameter of the aperture is substantially equal to the entrance pupil diameter of the projection lens.
However, Lee explicitly shows that an analogous projection lens comprises nine lenses (Fig. 1), wherein a f-number of the projection lens is in a range from 1 to 3 (Table 1), and the f-number is a value derived from dividing a focal length by an entrance pupil diameter (by definition), and the image source (IS1) comprising a protection glass (CG), wherein the prism (P11; note that a polarizing beam splitter is a particular type of prism) is located between the light incident side of the projection lens (S119) and the protection glass (CG) of the image source (IS1). Regarding the aperture stop, Cheng teaches an analogous LCoS projection system (Fig. 1) where the aperture stop (ST) is at the incident end of the waveguide element (110), i.e. the emitting end of the projection lens (140), and Liu teaches that the aperture stop and entrance pupil diameter in such devices are equal (¶64).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the projection lens configuration of Lee to implement the projection system of Waldern according to the teachings of Cheng and Liu, and thereby maximized light efficiency between the projection optics and the volume holographic optical element.
Regarding claim 14, the modified Waldern teaches the volume holographic optical element projection system of claim 11, but does not explicitly show wherein a diameter of the aperture is in a range from 13.5 mm to 14.5 mm.
However, configuration of the aperture stop and the setting of its size with respect to the entrance pupil is known from the prior art as cited above. It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions. In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929). See also MPEP 2144.05 II. A. Therefore variation of the diameter of the aperture would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention toward fulfilling the motivation of Waldern concerning maximizing light efficiency.
Regarding claim 18, the modified Waldern teaches the volume holographic optical element projection system of claim 11, but does note explicitly show wherein the material of each of the nine lenses is glass.
Official Notice is taken that glass is a well known suitable material for lenses, e.g. from Galileo. It has been held that selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 19, the modified Waldern teaches the volume holographic optical element projection system of claim 11, but does not explicitly show wherein each of the nine lenses is a spherical lens.
Lenses having spherical surfaces are exceptionally well known in the cited art (Lee, Table 1 and Table 2, showing that 80% of the lenses are spherical lenses), and Official Notice is taken that spherical lenses, having been known since Galileo, Gauss, etc. are among the simplest and most inexpensive lenses to manufacture.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented the projection lenses of the modified Waldern using spherical surfaces for the purpose of simplifying manufacture and thus reducing the cost.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7, 10, 12, 13, 15-17, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 4, the modified Waldern teaches the volume holographic optical element projection system of claim 2, but does not explicitly show wherein a distance between the first lens and the protection glass is in a range from 50 mm to 51 mm.
Regarding claim 5, the modified Waldern teaches the volume holographic optical element projection system of claim 1, but does not explicitly show wherein a total length of the projection lens is in a range from 38 mm to 39 mm.
Regarding claim 6, the modified Waldern teaches the volume holographic optical element projection system of claim 1, but does not explicitly show wherein a maximum effective diameter of the nine lenses is smaller than or equal to 23 mm.
Regarding claim 7, the modified Waldern teaches the volume holographic optical element projection system of claim 1, but does not explicitly show wherein a field of view of the projection lens is greater than 25 degrees and smaller than 35 degrees.
Regarding claim 10, the modified Waldern teaches the volume holographic optical element projection system of claim 1, but does not explicitly show wherein the nine lenses comprises a first lens, a second lens, a third lens, a fourth lens, a fifth lens, a sixth lens, a seventh lens, an eighth lens, and a ninth lens from the light emitting side to the light incident side, wherein the fourth lens and the fifth lens are glued to form a first lens group, and the seventh lens, the eighth lens, and the ninth lens are glued to form a second lens group.
Regarding claim 12, the modified Waldern teaches the volume holographic optical element projection system of claim 11, but does not explicitly show wherein the nine lenses of the projection lens comprises a first lens, the first lens is adjacent to the light emitting side, and the aperture is located at a surface of the first lens facing the light emitting side.
Regarding claim 13, the modified Waldern teaches the volume holographic optical element projection system of claim 12, but does not explicitly show wherein a distance between the first lens and the protection glass is in a range from 50 mm to 51 mm.
Regarding claim 15, the modified Waldern teaches the volume holographic optical element projection system of claim 11, but does not explicitly show wherein a total length of the projection lens is in a range from 38 mm to 39 mm.
Regarding claim 16, the modified Waldern teaches the volume holographic optical element projection system of claim 11, but does not explicitly show wherein a maximum effective diameter of the nine lenses is smaller than or equal to 23 mm.
Regarding claim 17, the modified Waldern teaches the volume holographic optical element projection system of claim 11, but does not explicitly show wherein a field of view of the projection lens is greater than 25 degrees and smaller than 35 degrees.
Regarding claim 20, the modified Waldern teaches the volume holographic optical element projection system of claim 11, but does not explicitly show wherein the nine lenses comprises a first lens, a second lens, a third lens, a fourth lens, a fifth lens, a sixth lens, a seventh lens, an eighth lens, and a ninth lens from the light emitting side to the light incident side, wherein the fourth lens and the fifth lens are glued to form a first lens group, and the seventh lens, the eighth lens, and the ninth lens are glued to form a second lens group.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLLIN X BEATTY whose telephone number is (571)270-1255. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 10am - 6pm.
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 Pham can be reached on 5712723689. 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.
/COLLIN X BEATTY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights