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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the diffracting grating" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the holographic combiner forms a convergent lens in the or each emission spectral band.” In line 6 this is indefinite because convergent lens “in the or” is not grammatically correct.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the holographic combiner forms a reflector in the or each emission spectral band.” In line 9 this is indefinite because convergent lens “in the or” is not grammatically correct.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Topliss US 2019/0285897.
Regarding claim 1, Topliss teaches a device for projecting an image onto an eye, the device comprising: a light emitter (fig. 7-9 light engine 510) , configured to emit light waves along various respective emission axes; an optical combiner (holographic combiner 550), optically coupled to the light emitter, and configured to form, from each light wave emitted by the light emitter, a collimated light wave that propagates towards the pupil of the eye (see fig 7 bottom); wherein: the combiner has an object focal plane (fig. 9 surface of light engine); the light emitter comprises a directional screen, comprising various pixels (foveal projectors 512), each pixel being configured to emit a divergent light wave along a predefined pixel emission axis, the light wave propagating such as to make a predefined pixel divergence angle to the pixel emission axis (see fig. 9 light beams from foveal projector 900); the directional screen is placed in the object focal plane of the combiner (see fig. 9); the optical combiner is configured to receive each light wave emitted by a pixel and to form a collimated light wave that propagates towards a position likely to be occupied by the pupil of the eye (see fig 7 bottom); the respective pixel emission axes of various pixels of the directional screen converge to the same target point (foveal eye box positions for projector 3), downstream of the combiner; the image of the target point, formed by the combiner, corresponds to the position likely to be occupied by the pupil of the eye (see fig. 7).
Regarding claim 8, Topliss teaches the device of claim 1, wherein: the combiner extends around an optical axis (see fig. 8 see light path 900 and eye box 560); the pixels of the screen are segmented into groups of pixels (foveal projectors 512); the pixel emission axes of a given group of pixels converge to the same target point associated with the group of pixels (see fig. 9); two different groups of pixels are associated with two different target points (see fig. 9 bottom and top light paths from light engine 510), at least one target point associated with a group of pixels being distant from the optical axis (see fig. 9).
Regarding claim 12, Topliss teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the combiner is a holographic combiner (fig. 10 holographic combiner 550).
Regarding claim 13, Topliss teaches the device of claim 12, wherein: the screen emits light in at least one emission spectral band [0093]; the holographic combiner is transparent outside of the or each emission spectral band; (see fig. 5 light from environment passes) the holographic combiner forms a convergent lens ([0060]).
Regarding 14, Topliss teaches the device of claim 13, wherein the holographic combiner forms a reflector (see fig. 5 reflects projected light beams) in the or each emission spectral band.
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) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Topliss US 2019/0285897.
Regarding claim 9, Topliss teaches the device of claim 8, however the limitation wherein: the screen comprises a first group of pixels, the pixel emission axes of which converge to a first target point, the first group of pixels being configured to form a first portion of an image when the pupil of the eye occupies a first position; the screen comprises a second group of pixels, the pixel emission axes of which converge to a second target point, different from the first target point, the second group of pixels being configured to form a second portion of the image when the pupil of the eye occupies a second position, angularly offset from the first position does not appear to teach any structural limitations beyond the specific mapping of pixels to points on target point which is taught (see figs 23-25). Since Topliss describes pupil position may be tracked along with selective illumination (see [0061]) this would appear to meet any structural limitations imparted by the claim limitations.
Regarding claim 10, Topliss teaches the device of claim 8, however the limitation the screen comprises a first group of pixels, the pixel emission axes of which converge to a first target point, the first group of pixels being configured to form an image when the pupil of the eye occupies a first position; the screen comprises a second group of pixels, the pixel emission axes of which converge to a second target point, different from the first target point, the second group of pixels being configured to form the image when the pupil of the eye occupies a second position, different from the first position does not appear to teach any structural limitations beyond the specific mapping of pixels to points on target point which is taught (see figs 23-25). Since Topliss describes pupil position may be tracked along with selective illumination (see [0061]) this would appear to meet any structural limitations imparted by the claim limitations.
Regarding claim 11, Topliss teaches the device of claim 10, wherein: the pixels of the screen are segmented into macro-pixels, the pixels of a given macro-pixel being configured to display the same content; the pixel emission axes of a given macro-pixel target various target points appears not impart any structural limitations not taught by Topliss as there is no basis for establishing a macro pixel and appears to be done purely as a function of how the pixels are driven.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 4-7 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHU VU whose telephone number is (571)272-1562. The examiner can normally be reached 11:00 - 7:00 M-F.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at 571-272-9791. 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.
/PHU VU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871