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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/406332 filed on January 8, 2024 is presented for examination by the examiner. The amended claims submitted May 6, 2026 in response to the office action mailed February 17, 2026 are under consideration. Claims 1-8 are pending and amended at least by the amendments to independent claim 1.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the amended limitations “an image display surface that is a two-dimensional flat surface” in line 2 and “on the two-dimensional flat surface” of lines 14-15 (emphasis added) are not supported by the application as filed. In particular, the applicant paragraphs [0022] and Fig. 3A as providing support for the amendments. Paragraph [0022] merely discloses that the image display surface S is shown in Figs. 3A and 3B with projection positions on the image display surface whose correspondence to the swing positions of the scanning mirror are defined in a look-up table. This reasonably establishes that the image display surface is two-dimensional, not one-dimensional. However, any surface in planar view will appear planar. Thus, there is no way of knowing from paragraph [0022] or Figs. 3A and 3B is the image surface was or was not flat. Fig. 14 shows that the projection could be onto the lens or a half mirror of a glass display (or eyeglass display). However, paragraphs [0072]-[0075] describing the embodiment of Fig. 14 do not disclose the shape of the lens or half mirror and an ordinary skilled artisan would assume that the lenses in eyewear are typically mildly curved either related to the lens prescription or for improved peripheral vision. Thus the specification as filed lacks support for a literal interpretation of the word “flat” within the limitation “an image display surface that is a two-dimensional flat surface”.
Claims 2-8 depend from claim 1 and inherit and do not mitigate the above written description issue from claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-8 are 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.
Regarding claim 1, The term “flat” in claim 1 lines 2 and 14-15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “flat” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The lack of explicit written description support above engenders an indefiniteness issue with regard to the degree of flatness needed to meet the claim. Possible interpretations consistent with the use thereof in the prior art of eyewear and head-mounted displays include (1) flat within manufacturing tolerances (2) locally flat (3) as flat as non-wrapping prescription eyewear lenses (4) substantially flat with deviations of up to 20° from a perfect plane, such as the deviations due to facial wrap or pantographic tilt of spectacle lenses1. Due to the lack of guidance in the specification as filed, this is an issue of indefiniteness, not simply an issue of breadth.
Claims 2-8 depend from claim 1 and inherit and do not mitigate the above indefiniteness issue from claim 1.
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 1-2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsuyama et al. US 2019/0101746 A1 (hereafter Katsuyama) in view of Greenberg US 2020/0150428 A1 (hereafter Greenberg) and Maier et al. US 2023/0112055 A1 (hereafter Maier) as evidenced by Specht et al. US 2024/0249653 A1 (hereafter Specht).
Regarding claim 1, Katsuyama teaches (Fig. 22) “An optical module (Fig. 22 paragraph [0128]: “the two-dimensional optical scanning device according to Example 12”) for displaying an image by projecting laser light onto an image display surface (e.g. paragraph [0132]: “An image projector, comprising: the two-dimensional optical scanning device according to any of (14) through (16); a two-dimensional optical scanning controller for two-dimensionally scanning the emission light emitted from the light source by applying a two-dimensional optical scanning signal to the alternating magnetic field generator; and an image formation unit for projecting the scanned emission light onto a projection surface.” see also paragraph [0016]: “an image formation unit for projecting the emission light that has been scanned onto a projection plane” emphasis added.) that is a two-dimensional flat surface (paragraph [0016]: “an image formation unit for projecting the emission light that has been scanned onto a projection plane” emphasis added. A plane is both two-dimensional and “flat” at least in the sense that it is flat enough to be called a plane. See Specht paragraph [0034] which discusses the flat eye pupil plane of a retinal display and the degree of deviations from a perfect plane that would still be considered to be flat.), comprising:
a laser light source part (light source device 140) provided with a plurality of laser light emitting elements (semiconductor laser chips 147, 148 and 149) on a main surface of a first substrate (Si substrate 141, see Fig. 22 147-149 are on the top main surface of substrate 141), each of the laser light emitting elements being configured to emit each of a plurality of laser lights having different peak wavelengths, respectively (e.g. paragraph [0130]: “a red semiconductor laser chip 147, a green semiconductor laser chip 148 and a blue semiconductor laser chip 149”);
a mirror part (two-dimensional optical scanning mirror device 130) provided with an optical scanning mirror element (movable mirror unit 10) on a main surface of a second substrate (Si substrate 131 see Fig. 22 the movable mirror unit 10 is on the top main surface of a second substrate 131) that is integrated with the first substrate (see Fig. 22 they are both on top of mounting substrate 120);
a laser drive control part (Fig. 7, paragraph [0068]: “an R laser driver 54, a G laser driver 55, a B laser driver 56”) configured to individually and independently control an intensity of laser light emitted from the laser light emitting elements (paragraph [0068]: “The controller 51 generates an R signal, a G signal, a B signal, a horizontal signal and a vertical signal for forming an image on the basis of the image data that is supplied from an external apparatus such as a PC via the external I/F 53. The controller 51 transmits the R signal to the R laser driver 54, the G signal to the G laser driver 55 and the B signal to the B laser driver 56, respectively.”);
a mirror drive control part (two-dimensional scanning driver 57) configured to control swinging of the optical scanning mirror element (paragraph [0068]: “the controller 51 transmits the horizontal signal and the vertical signal to the two-dimensional scanning driver 57 and controls the current to be applied to the magnetic field generator 30, and thus controls the operation of the movable mirror portion 10.” This horizontal and vertical control is of swinging the mirror about two axes.);
a memory (paragraph [0068]: “The controller 51 is formed of a microcomputer that includes a CPU, a ROM, a RAM and the like.”) configured to store (ROM and RAM are both memory and thus are configured to store tables) … relations between each swing position of the optical scanning mirror element and a projection position of each laser light emitted from each of the laser light emitting elements on the two-dimensional flat surface (see paragraphs [0068]-[0070] the controller generates an R signal, a G signal, a B signal, a horizontal signal and a vertical signal for forming an image on the basis of the image data… The laser beams respectively generated by the red laser 42, the green laser 43 and the blue laser 44 are multiplexed by the optical multiplexer 41, and after that two-dimensionally scanned by the movable mirror portion 10. The scanned multiplexed laser beam is reflected from a concave reflecting mirror 58 and passes through the pupil 59 so as to form an image on a retina 60”. Therefor the controller stores the relationship between the horizontal and vertical positions of the mirror and the position in the image projected onto the retina. If this were not true, the projector would not be able to form the image based on the image data onto the retina. Note that as disclosed in paragraph [0016] the image display surface is a projection plane and thus a two-dimensional flat surface when “flat” is interpreted consistent with its broadest reasonable interpretation in the art. See Specht paragraph [0034] which discusses the flat eye pupil plane of a retinal display and the degree of deviations from a perfect plane that would still be considered to be flat.); and
a system control part (control unit 50) configured to control the laser drive control part and the mirror drive control part (see Fig. 7 and paragraph [0068]).”
However, Katsuyama does not explicitly teach “a lookup table that is an array of correspondence relations between each swing position of the optical scanning mirror element and a projection position of each laser light emitted from each of the laser light emitting elements on the image display surface;…wherein the system control part controls the mirror drive control part on a basis of the lookup table.” The relationship between the horizontal and vertical positions of the mirror and the position on the image display surface could instead be an analytical formula or equation, not a look up table.
Greenberg teaches “An optical module (eye projection system 100) for displaying an image by projecting laser light onto an image display surface (see Fig. 1), comprising:
a laser light source part (light module 114 which can have Red, Green and Blue lasers see paragraph [0119]) provided with a plurality of laser light emitting elements (paragraph [0119]: “Red, Green and Blue lasers”) … each of the laser light emitting elements being configured to emit each of a plurality of laser lights having different peak wavelengths, respectively (red, blue and green);
a mirror part (scanner module 118 which can be a scanning mirror see paragraph [0073]) provided with an optical scanning mirror element (paragraph [0073] scanning mirror)…
a laser drive control part (image generator 116) configured to individually and independently control an intensity of laser light emitted from the laser light emitting elements (paragraph [0076]: “the intensity modulator 117 may be configured and operable to controllably adjust (attenuate/modulate) the intensity Int and possibly also the chromatic/spectral content SPC of the light beam ILB from the light module 114… additionally or alternatively, the intensity modulators may be implemented utilizing controllers adapted to control operation of the light sources/lasers in the light module 114 so as to adjust their output intensity.”);
a mirror drive control part (image scanner 118) configured to control swinging of the optical scanning mirror element (see paragraph [0077]: “The image scanner 118, … may include one or more optical deflectors (e.g., adjustable optical deflectors such as fast scanning/raster mirror(s),… configured and operable to perform image scan and/or spatial modulation to deflect the light beam to propagate along various scan/projection angles α.sub.scn thereby splitting the light beam to plurality of light beam portions corresponding to respective pixels of the image 12.”);
a memory (paragraph [0111]: “one or more controllers of an eye projection system 100” which includes memory see paragraph [0114]: “The image mapping S′ or S may be implemented as functions or lookup data tables (LUTs)”) configured to store a lookup table (paragraph [0114]: “lookup data tables”) that is an array of correspondence relations between each swing position of the optical scanning mirror element and a projection position of each laser light emitted from each of the laser light emitting elements on the image display surface (paragraph [0114]: “associating each projection angle α.sub.scn with a corresponding pixel P.sub.i or pixel location in the input image 12.”); and
a system control part (image projection controller 112) configured to control the laser drive control part and the mirror drive control part (see Fig. 1),
wherein the system control part controls the mirror drive control part on a basis of the lookup table (see Fig. 3 and paragraphs [0114],[0116]).”
Maier teaches a head-mounted display having a MEMS mirror assembly 16. Maier further teaches (paragraph [0017]): “The dependency of the modulation signal/s on the detected ROI can be given by an analytical formula programmed into the controller. However, in a practical implementation the controller may have a memory with a look-up table which stores, for each one of a set of different ROIs within the image area, at least a respective first modulation signal dependent on that ROI, and the controller is configured to retrieve at least the first modulation signal dependent on the detected ROI from the look-up table. A look-up table allows for a fast real-time implementation with low processing needs and the use of prestored dependency functions found heuristically or by simulation.”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a lookup table that relates the swing position of the scanning mirror and the position on the display surface as taught by Greenberg in the device of Katsuyama because Maier teaches that a look-up table allows for a fast real-time implementation with low processing needs and the use of prestored dependency functions found heuristically or by simulation (Maier paragraph [0017]).
Regarding claim 2, the Katsuyama – Greenberg – Maier combination teaches “The optical module according to claim 1,” and Katsuyama further teaches “wherein the system control part is configured to create a light intensity map table from image data that is a pixel value of each pixel of an image to be displayed on the image display surface (paragraph [0068]: “The controller 51 generates an R signal, a G signal, a B signal, a horizontal signal and a vertical signal for forming an image on the basis of the image data”)… and is configured to control the laser drive control part and the mirror drive control part to construct the image on a basis of the light intensity map table (paragraph [0068]: “The controller 51 transmits the R signal to the R laser driver 54, the G signal to the G laser driver 55 and the B signal to the B laser driver 56, respectively. In addition, the controller 51 transmits the horizontal signal and the vertical signal to the two-dimensional scanning driver 57 and controls the current to be applied to the magnetic field generator 30, and thus controls the operation of the movable mirror portion 10”), the light intensity map table being an intensity ratio of the laser light emitted from each of the laser light emitting elements for each swing position of the optical scanning mirror element (paragraphs [0069]-[0070]: “generate a laser beam having a desired color by adjusting the intensity ratio of the laser beams of the respective colors… The laser beams respectively generated by the red laser 42, the green laser 43 and the blue laser 44 are multiplexed by the optical multiplexer 41, and after that two-dimensionally scanned by the movable mirror portion 10.”).”
However, as noted above for claim 1, Katsuyama fails to explicitly teach a lookup table. The combination of references introduced for claim 1 further teaches “wherein the system control part is configured to create a light intensity map table from image data that is a pixel value of each pixel of an image to be displayed on the image display surface and the lookup table” because Katsuyama was modified in view of Greenberg and Maier to utilize a lookup table that determines the correspondence between the mirror position and the position on the display surface.
Regarding claim 4, the Katsuyama – Greenberg – Maier combination teaches “The optical module according to claim 1,” and Katsuyama further teaches “wherein the laser light emitting elements are configured to emit visible light range laser light in a wavelength range of 380 nm or more and less than 800 nm (e.g. paragraph [0130]: “a red semiconductor laser chip 147, a green semiconductor laser chip 148 and a blue semiconductor laser chip 149” Red, green and blue are all within the visible light range and thus in a wavelength range of 380 nm or more and less than 800 nm).”
Regarding claim 5, the Katsuyama – Greenberg – Maier combination teaches “The optical module according to claim 1,” and Katsuyama further teaches “wherein the optical scanning mirror element is a MEMS mirror (see paragraphs [0002]-[0004] and [0011]-[0012]).”
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsuyama et al. US 2019/0101746 A1 (hereafter Katsuyama) in view of Greenberg US 2020/0150428 A1 (hereafter Greenberg) and Maier et al. US 2023/0112055 A1 (hereafter Maier) as evidenced by Specht et al. US 2024/0249653 A1 (hereafter Specht) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Fukuzaki et al. WO 2021/149450 A1 (hereafter Fukuzaki, where reference will be made to Fukuzaki et al. US 2023/0134378 A1 as the English language equivalent).
Regarding claim 3, the Katsuyama – Greenberg – Maier combination teaches “The optical module according to claim 1,” however, Katsuyama fails to teach “wherein the first substrate and the second substrate are bonded via a metal bonding layer.” In particular, Katsuyama teaches that the first and second substrates are proximate to one another and both positioned on a mounting substrate but does not specify any of the connections therebetween.
Fukuzaki teaches an optical system (Figs. 1, 4 and 7) involving a three semiconductor based light sources LD 30-1, LD30-2 and LD 30-3 which emit red, green and blue light respectively (see paragraph [0066]) provided on first substrates (subcarriers 20) adjacent to another optical element on a second substrate (substrate 40).
Fukuzaki further teaches (claim 3) “wherein the first substrate (20) and the second substrate (40) are bonded via a metal bonding layer (first, second and third metal layers 71, 72 and 73 see Figs. 4 and 7 which are a metal bonding layer in that they connect 20 and 40 see e.g. paragraph [0084]: “the subcarrier (mounting base) 20 and the substrate 40 are connected through the metal layer”).”
Fukuzaki further teaches (paragraphs [0084] and [0087]): “As shown in FIG. 4, in the integrated optical device 10 of this embodiment, a bottom surface (mounting base bottom surface) 23 facing the upper surface (surface) 21 of the subcarrier (mounting base) 20 and a bottom surface (substrate bottom surface) 43 facing the upper surface (surface) 41 of the substrate 40 are provided to be located on the substantially same plane S. In the integrated optical device 10 of this embodiment, since the subcarrier (mounting base) 20 and the substrate 40 are connected through the metal layer, the occurrence of positional deviation due to the heating process is remarkably suppressed compared with the hybrid integrated optical module of Patent Document 4 having a structure connected by an adhesive.”
“Further, since the bottom surface 23 of the subcarrier 20 and the bottom surface 43 of the substrate 40 are provided on the substantially same plane S in this embodiment, both the bottom surface 23 of the subcarrier 20 and the bottom surface 43 of the substrate 40 can be bonded to one plane of the substrate or the like when the integrated optical device 10 is bonded to one plane of another substrate or the like. Accordingly, it is possible to maintain a high bonding strength and to realize the integrated optical device 10 having excellent impact resistance.”
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate metal bonding layers between the side surfaces of the first and second substrates as taught by Fukuzaki in the device of Katsuyama because Fukuzaki teaches that the metal bonding connection between the first and second substrates suppresses the occurrence of positional deviation due to the heating process compared to an adhesive (Fukuzaki paragraph [0084]) and configuring all of the first and second substrates and the metal layers to be on substantially the same plane and bonded to the same lower substrate enables maintaining a high bonding strength and realizes a device having excellent impact resistance (Fukuzaki paragraph [0087]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsuyama et al. US 2019/0101746 A1 (hereafter Katsuyama) in view of Greenberg US 2020/0150428 A1 (hereafter Greenberg) and Maier et al. US 2023/0112055 A1 (hereafter Maier) as evidenced by Specht et al. US 2024/0249653 A1 (hereafter Specht) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Freedman et al. US 2019/0235252 A1 (hereafter Freedman).
Regarding claim 6, the Katsuyama – Greenberg – Maier combination teaches “The optical module according to claim 1,” however, Katsuyama fails to teach “wherein a surface of a mirror surface portion of the optical scanning mirror element is a concave mirror of which a cross section passing through a center point forms a parabola.”
Freedman teaches a head-mounted display device having a plurality of laser light source (four sets of red, green, and blue (RGB) laser diodes 341A, 341B, 341C, and 341D) and a 2-D scanning mirror (350).
Freedman further teaches (claim 6) “wherein a surface of a mirror surface portion of the optical scanning mirror element (paragraph [0057]: “scanning mirror 350 having a surface with positive optical power, e.g., parabolic mirror 351”) is a concave mirror (e.g. paragraph [0027]: “the surface with positive optical power includes a concave mirror.” see also Fig. 7) of which a cross section passing through a center point forms a parabola ([0066]: “The scanning mirror surface with positive optical power, e.g., a parabolic mirror”. If the mirror is parabolic, then its cross section forms a parabola including at any center point thereof. Note that as written the claim does not exclude off-axis parabolas. Firstly, the term “center” can be the center of the mirror, and is not necessarily the vertex of the parabola. Secondly, the claim does not recite that the surface of the mirror includes the vertex of the parabola, only that a cross-section of the mirror forms a parabola.).”
Freedman further teaches (paragraphs [0060] and [0066]): “The scanning mirror 350 can be a mirror with positive optical power. In the field of optics, the term optical power (also referred to as dioptric power, refractive power, focusing power, or convergence power) is the degree to which a lens, mirror, or other optical system converges or diverges light… For example, the scanning mirror can be a curved mirror, a parabolic mirror, a spherical mirror approximating a parabolic mirror, an aspheric mirror, or the like. Mirrors of other shapes can be formed using optical design methods for optimization.”
“The scanning mirror surface with positive optical power, e.g., a parabolic mirror, is configured to collimate light emitted by the plurality of point light sources.”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the shape of the surface of the scanning mirror to be parabolic as taught by Freedman in the device of Katsuyama for the purpose of providing positive focusing power to converge the light, for example to collimate the light from the plurality of light sources (Freedman paragraphs [0060] and [0066]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsuyama et al. US 2019/0101746 A1 (hereafter Katsuyama) in view of Greenberg US 2020/0150428 A1 (hereafter Greenberg) and Maier et al. US 2023/0112055 A1 (hereafter Maier) as evidenced by Specht et al. US 2024/0249653 A1 (hereafter Specht) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Sakurai et al. US 2024/0126081 A1 (hereafter Sakurai).
Regarding claim 7, the Katsuyama – Greenberg – Maier combination teaches “The optical module according to claim 1,” and Katsuyama further teaches “An optical engine for image projection (Fig. 22 see parts thereof below), comprising:
the optical module according to claim 1 (see claim 1);
one common substrate (mounting substrate 120) on which the first substrate and the second substrate are placed (see 141 and 131 on 120 in Fig. 22).”
However, Katsuyama fails to explicitly teach “an integrated circuit formed on the common substrate and configured to control the laser light emitting element and the optical scanning mirror element.” Note however, that Katsuyama does teach that mounting substrate 120 can be a printed circuit board (see paragraph [0131]).
Sakurai teaches an eyeglass-type video display device having laser light source (VCSEL 17) and a scanning MEMs mirror (20).
Sakurai further teaches (Figs. 1, 2B, 6 and 7B) “An optical engine for image projection (eyeglass-type video display device 55), comprising:
one common substrate (substrate 15) on which the [laser light source] (VCSEL 17) and the [mirror] (MEMs deflector 20) are placed (see Figs. 2B, 6 and 7B), and
an integrated circuit (video processing driver 85, laser drive unit LDD 84 and MEMS Driver 80) formed on the common substrate (see Fig. 7B and paragraph [0089]: “In the video generation device 10b, the MEMS optical deflector 20, the VCSEL 17, the LDD 84, the video processing unit 85, the MEMS driver 89, the communication unit 88, and the battery 90 are mounted on the substrate 15 in a row in the order from the front end to the rear end.”) and configured to control the laser light emitting element (The video processing unit 85 generates control signals to the LDD 84 which controls the VCSEL) and the optical scanning mirror element (MEMs driver 89 controls the MEMs and must do so in synchronously with the VCSEL in order to make an image, thus 85 must control 89 at least to some extent).”
Sakurai further teaches (paragraph [0089]): “The VCSEL 17, the LDD 84, and the video processing unit 85 constitute a high-speed signal processing unit 86 in the video generation device 10b, and therefore are placed close to each other to reduce the wiring length on the substrate 15.”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the controller as an integrated circuit mounted on the same substrate as the laser light source and the mirror as taught by Sakurai in the device of Katsuyama in order to mount all of the necessary components on the temple of the head-mounted display and to reduce the wiring lengths between the controllers and the controlled devices as taught by Sakurai (Fig. 1 and paragraph [0089]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsuyama et al. US 2019/0101746 A1 (hereafter Katsuyama) in view of Greenberg US 2020/0150428 A1 (hereafter Greenberg), Maier et al. US 2023/0112055 A1 (hereafter Maier) and Sakurai et al. US 2024/0126081 A1 (hereafter Sakurai) as evidenced by Specht et al. US 2024/0249653 A1 (hereafter Specht) as applied to claim 7 above as evidenced by Matsumoto US 2010/0073262 A1 (hereafter Matsumoto).
Regarding claim 8, the Katsuyama combination teaches “the optical engine for image projection according to claim 7” and Katsuyama further teaches “A glass display (Fig. 7 paragraph [0067]: “spectacle-type retina scanning display”) comprising:
the optical engine for image projection according to claim 7 (see claim 7 above); and
a frame having an eyeglass shape (paragraph [0067]: “spectacle-type”),
wherein the optical engine for image projection is disposed at a temple part of the frame (paragraph [0067]: “The image projector according to the embodiment of the present invention is to be worn on the head of a user by using a spectacle-type accessory or the like (see Patent Literature 5).” this is a position on the temple part of the frame as evidence by Patent Literature 5: Matsumoto Fig. 2 that shows the optical engine being attached at two points to the temple).”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 6, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In lines 3-6 of page 5 of 6 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that support for the amendments to claim 1 may be found in the specification at, for example, paragraph 0022 and Fig. 3A. For the reasons explained in the new 35 USC §112(a) rejections above, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
In the remainder of page 5 of 6 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant lists the rejections of record, points out the newly added limitations to claim 1, points to where the applicant believes support may be found for the amendment and introduces that they will be arguing that the applied references, individually or in combination, do not disclose and would not have rendered obvious the subject matter recited in claim 1, as amended.
In the paragraph spanning pages 5 and 6 of 6 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that Katsuyama, Greenberg and Maier are all directed to eye projection systems where laser lights are projected to an eye, which is not a two-dimensional flat surface. Thus, amended claim 1 is patentable over the applied references. This argument is not persuasive for at least the following reasons. Firstly, Katsuyama specifically discloses in paragraph [0016]: “an image formation unit for projecting the emission light that has been scanned onto a projection plane.” Thus the projection surface in Katsuyama is close enough to being flat that it can reasonably be described as a plane. That such a surface would be referred to as flat is evidenced by Specht (paragraph [0034]): “The eye pupil plane 54a is preferably flat, but deviates from a perfect plane by small curvatures. The eye pupil plane 54a can be approximately regarded/referred to as an eye pupil plane. The eye pupil plane 54a lies in front of the spectacle lenses 70a, 72a of the smart glasses 66a in a viewing direction of the user and runs at least substantially in parallel with a lens plane of the spectacle lenses 70a, 72a. In this case, the term “substantially parallel” is to be understood in particular to mean that deviations of up to 20° from a perfect plane are also included therein (keyword: facial wrap and pantograph tilt of the spectacle lenses 70a, 72a).” Secondly, although the field of head-mounted displays uses the term “retinal displays” in most cases, the image is not actually projected onto the entirety of the retina, but more often just the macula, or even just the fovea, both of which are small enough to be considered flat. Thirdly, if the claim were amended to restrict the degree of flatness, it would have been obvious in view of Specht to adopt a flat eye pupil plane onto which the image is projected, even in a retinal display.
No further specific arguments are made after this paragraph.
The request for an interview with the examiner in paragraph five of page 6 of 6 of the applicant’s remarks is denied. The nature and number of the outstanding issues of patentability are such that it does not appear that an interview would result in expediting allowance of the application at this time. See MPEP §713.01 (IV) “An interview should be had only when the nature of the case is such that the interview could serve to develop and clarify specific issues and lead to a mutual understanding between the examiner and the applicant, and thereby advance the prosecution of the application. … Where a complete reply to a first action includes a request for an interview, the examiner, after consideration of the reply, should grant such an interview request if it appears that the interview would result in expediting the allowance of the application.”
Conclusion
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 CARA E RAKOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-4206. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-4PM ET 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, Thomas Pham can be reached at 571-272-3689. 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.
/CARA E RAKOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
1 Specht et al. US 2024/0249653 A1 (paragraph [0034]): “The eye pupil plane 54a is preferably flat, but deviates from a perfect plane by small curvatures. The eye pupil plane 54a can be approximately regarded/referred to as an eye pupil plane. The eye pupil plane 54a lies in front of the spectacle lenses 70a, 72a of the smart glasses 66a in a viewing direction of the user and runs at least substantially in parallel with a lens plane of the spectacle lenses 70a, 72a. In this case, the term “substantially parallel” is to be understood in particular to mean that deviations of up to 20° from a perfect plane are also included therein (keyword: facial wrap and pantograph tilt of the spectacle lenses 70a, 72a).
Prosecution Insights