Attorney’s Docket Number: 136926-US-PA
Filing Date: 12/21/2023
Claimed Priority Dates: 12/14/2023 (TW112148654), 1/31/2023 (PRO 63/482,302)
Applicant(s): Chao et al.
Examiner: Rianna B. Greer
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to the application filed on 12/21/2023.
Remarks
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The application serial no. 18/391,666 filed on 12/21/2023 has been entered. Pending in this Office action are claims 1-20.
Specification
2. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
- In Par. [0023], “FIG. 11 is a schematic view of a near-eye display according to still embodiment of the disclosure.” should read --FIG. 11 is a schematic view of a near-eye display according to still yet another embodiment of the disclosure.--
- In Par. [0045], “…an optical module 100G depicted in FIG. 8A to FIG. 8G is substantially the same as the optical module 100 depicted in FIG. 1B…” should read --…an optical module 100G depicted in FIG. 8A to FIG. 8C is substantially the same as the optical module 100 depicted in FIG. 1B…--
- In Par. [0052], “FIG. 11 is a schematic view of a near-eye display according to still embodiment of the disclosure.” should read --FIG. 11 is a schematic view of a near-eye display according to still yet another embodiment of the disclosure.--
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-4, 10, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brennan (US2020/0049979) in view of Tamma (US2022/0146079).
5. Regarding Claim 1, Brennan (see, e.g., Figs. 3-4, 6, 15-16, and 20) shows most aspects of the instant invention including an optical module (waveguide display 300), configured to generate an illumination light beam (e.g., image light 340) and comprising:
- a red light emitting chip array (e.g., light sources 604 in Fig. 6, red subassembly 2002 in Fig. 20), comprising a plurality of independently driven red light emitting chips (see, e.g., Par. [0061]: light assembly 600 comprises an array of light sources 604, which may comprise LEDs (e.g., micro LEDs) on a chip, and a light assembly 600 may comprise multiple chips), wherein each of the red light emitting chips is configured to emit a red light
- a green light emitting chip array (e.g., light sources 604 in Fig. 6, green subassembly 2004 in Fig. 20), comprising a plurality of independently driven green light emitting chips, wherein each of the green light emitting chips is configured to emit a green light
- a blue light emitting chip array (e.g., light sources 604 in Fig. 6, blue subassembly 2006 in Fig. 20), comprising a plurality of independently driven blue light emitting chips, wherein each of the blue light emitting chips is configured to emit a blue light
- an optical element (e.g., optics system 415), disposed on transmission paths of the red lights, the green lights, and blue lights, wherein after passing through the optical element, the red lights, the green lights, and the blue lights form a plurality of light spots, each of the light spots comprises a red light spot, a green light spot, and a blue light spot formed after one of the red lights, one of the green lights, and one of the blue lights pass through the optical element, wherein the red lights, the green lights, and the blue lights pass through the optical element to form the illumination light beam (e.g., Par. [0067]: each pixel in the output light pattern may be illuminated by one or more light sources 604 in a corresponding column of the light assembly 600)
6. However, while Brennan (see, e.g., Par [0066]) discloses that optics system 415 comprises optics 712, which includes one or more lenses, gratings, apertures, and/or other optical elements to collimate and/or focus light from the light assembly 600, they are silent about the optical element being flat. Tamma (see, e.g., Pars. [0003] and [0017]-[0018] and Fig. 1), on the other hand and in the same field of endeavor, teaches a flat optical element (e.g., metalens 130) positioned over a light emitting diode array (e.g., LED array 110) to collimate, focus, or otherwise redirect the light emitted while enabling a more compact device design.
7. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have a flat optical element in the structure of Brennan, as taught by Tamma, to collimate, focus, or otherwise redirect light while enabling a more compact device design.
8. Regarding Claim 2, Brennan (see, e.g., Figs. 6 and 20) shows that the red light emitting chips (e.g., light sources 604 in Fig. 6, red subassembly 2002 in Fig. 20), the green light emitting chips (e.g., light sources 604 in Fig. 6, green subassembly 2004 in Fig. 20), or the blue light emitting chips (e.g., light sources 604 in Fig. 6, blue subassembly 2006 in Fig. 20) are vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser chips, micro light emitting diode chips, or micro organic light emitting diode chips (see, e.g., Par. [0044]: lights sources may include, e.g., a laser diode, a vertical cavity surface emitting laser, a light emitting diode (LED), and/or the like).
9. Regarding Claim 3, Tamma (see, e.g., Fig. 5) teaches that the flat optical element comprises a plurality of stacked metasurfaces (e.g., metasurfaces 505T and 505B).
10. Regarding Claim 4, Brennan (see, e.g., Fig. 20) shows that the red light emitting chips (e.g., red subassembly 2002 in Fig. 20), the green light emitting chips (e.g., green subassembly 2004 in Fig. 20), or the blue light emitting chips (e.g., blue subassembly 2006 in Fig. 20) are arranged in N*M arrays, wherein N≥1 and M≥2.
11. Regarding Claim 10, Tamma (see, e.g., Fig. 5) teaches that the flat optical element comprises a plurality of sub-flat optical elements (e.g., metasurfaces 505T and 505B), each disposed on the optical paths of these red lights, these green lights, and these blue lights.
12. Regarding Claim 14, Brennan (see, e.g., Fig. 10) shows that a pitch between the red light emitting chips, a pitch between the green light emitting chips, or a pitch between the blue light emitting chips is P1, a pitch between the light spots formed after the red lights, the green lights, or the blue lights pass through the flat optical element is P2, and P2<P1 (see, e.g., Par. [0073]: pixels 810 in an output light pattern 1004 with super resolution may have a horizontal pitch 1006 and/or a vertical pitch 1008 that is smaller than respective horizontal or vertical pitches of the light assembly).
13. Regarding Claim 15, Brennan (see, e.g., Figs. 1 and 4) shows a near-eye display (e.g., near-eye display 100), comprising: a plurality of the optical modules as described in claim 1; a controller (e.g., controller 330), electrically connected to the optical modules and configured to convert the illumination light beams into a plurality of image light beams; and a waveguide combiner (e.g., output waveguide 320), having a light entrance region (e.g., coupling element 350) and a light exit region (e.g., decoupling element 365), wherein the optical modules are disposed next to the light entrance region, after the light entrance region receives the image light beams, the waveguide combiner transmits the image light beams to the light exit region, and the image light beams are emitted from the light exit region.
14. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brennan (US2020/0049979) in view of Tamma (US2022/0146079) and in further view of Nowatzyk (US2013/0285885).
15. Regarding Claim 5, while Tamma (see, e.g., Par. [0058] and Fig. 10) teaches the inclusion of a sensor system (e.g., sensor system 1040) for sensing a variety of environmental stimuli, they are silent about this sensor system being defined explicitly as a plurality of first sensors, respectively disposed in the red light emitting chip array, the green light emitting chip array, and the blue light emitting chip array and configured to sense lights scattered to the first sensors from the red lights, the green lights, and the blue lights. Therefore, Brennan in view of Tamma does not explicitly show this plurality of first sensors as claimed. Nowatzyk (see, e.g., Par. [0040]), on the other hand and in the same field of endeavor, teaches that light sensors may be embedded into a light emitting diode array to sense the position of each beam on the retina from the light that is reflected back towards the light emitting diode array and to measure the eye and correct for lens aberrations without the need for an eye prescription.
16. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have a plurality of first sensors as claimed in the structure of Brennan in view of Tamma, because it is known in the optical and near-eye display art that light sensors can be embedded into a light emitting diode array to sense the position of each beam that is reflected back towards the light emitting diode array and correct for aberrations as taught by Nowatzyk, and implementing a known light sensor arrangement for its conventional use would have been a common sense choice by the skilled artisan. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Therefore, Brennan in view of Tamma and in further view of Nowatzyk also teaches a plurality of first sensors, respectively disposed in the red light emitting chip array, the green light emitting chip array, and the blue light emitting chip array and configured to sense lights scattered to the first sensors from the red lights, the green lights, and the blue lights.
Allowable Subject Matter
17. Claims 6-9, 11-13, and 16-20 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.
Conclusion
18. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. The additional references cited disclose optical modules having arrangements of features similar to the instant inventions.
19. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rianna B. Greer whose telephone number is (571) 272-7985. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 AM - 6 PM. 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, Wael Fahmy can be reached at (571) 272-1705. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
20. 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.
/R.B.G./Examiner, Art Unit 2814
/WAEL M FAHMY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2814