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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 1/25/2024 and 3/18/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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, 3 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US PG Pub. 2022/0091413 to Grabarnik et al. (hereinafter Grabarnik).
Regarding claim 1, Grabarnik discloses an optical system (Figs. 12A, 28, 29A-29B) comprising: a light guide (waveguide 2, Figs. 12A, 28, 29A-29B) to guide image light emitted from an image display element (illumination system 200, Figs. 12A, 28, 29A-29B) that displays an image, the light guide having: a light-emission surface (right surface of waveguide 3 in Fig. 29A); and an outer surface (left surface of waveguide 3 in Fig. 29A) opposite to the light-emission surface; a partial reflector (coupling-out arrangement 3, Fig. 29A-B) in the light guide to reflect a part of the image light guided in the light guide to an outside of the light guide through the light-emission surface ([0114]-[0120],[0155]-[0174]); and a polarizer (“polarizers can be implemented in front of cover plates 46 (in a similar fashion as shown in FIGS. 12A and 13B). The polarizer in front of the cover plate 46 which is farthest from the user of the display system (left side of waveguide 2 in FIG. 29A) can block the light ejected by facets 3 that is directed away from the user”) on the outer surface of the light guide to transmit a part of incident light incident on the polarizer, the polarizer having a first transmittance in a first polarization direction higher than a second transmittance in a second polarization direction orthogonal to the first polarization direction ([0165]), with respect to vertical incident light incident perpendicularly on the polarizer, and wherein the partial reflector has a first reflectance in the first polarization direction lower than a second reflectance in the second polarization direction, with respect to the vertical incident light (“Facets 3, optimized for s-polarization reflectance” and “polarizer in front of the cover plate 46 which is farthest from the user of the display system (left side of waveguide 2 in FIG. 29A) can block the light ejected by facets 3 that is directed away from the user”; [0114]-[0120],[0155]-[0174]).
Regarding claim 3, Grabarnik discloses multiple partial reflectors including the partial reflector, wherein the multiple partial reflectors are placed at intervals in an optical-axis direction of the optical system (Figs. 29A-29B).
Regarding claim 8, Grabarnik discloses a reflector (“light beam propagates through waveguide 2 towards the lens 5. Upon reflection from lens 5, the light becomes collimated in the plane of the waveguide”, Figs. 29-A-29B; [0114]-[0120],[0155]-[0174]), wherein the partial reflector is between a first area (bottom of waveguide 2, Fig. 29A-29B) and a second area (top of waveguide 2, Figs. 29A-29B) different from the first area, the partial reflector: transmits a part of first image light guided in a first direction (upward, Figs. 29A-29B) from the first area to the second area in the light guide; and reflects a part of second image light to exit outside the light guide through the outer surface (to the right in Figs. 29A-29B, [0114]-[0120],[0155]-[0174]), the second image light guided in a second direction (downward in Figs. 29A-29B; [0114]-[0120],[0155]-[0174]) opposite to the first direction, from the second area to the first area, and the reflector in the second area reflects the first image light, which is transmitted through the partial reflector in the first direction, back to the partial reflector in the second direction as the second image light (Figs. 29A-29B; [0114]-[0120],[0155]-[0174]).
Regarding claim 9, Grabarnik discloses a polarization converter (quarter waveplate 6, Figs. 29A-29B; [0114]-[0120],[0155]-[0174]) to: rotate a first polarization of the first image light guided in the first direction and transmitted through the partial reflector (Figs. 29A-29B; [0114]-[0120],[0155]-[0174]); and rotate a second polarization of the second image light guided in the second direction (Figs. 29A-29B; [0114]-[0120],[0155]-[0174]), which has been reflected back from the reflector, to convert the first image light polarized in the first polarization direction during transmission through the partial reflector, into the second image light polarized in the second polarization direction (Figs. 29A-29B; [0114]-[0120],[0155]-[0174]).
Regarding claim 10, Grabarnik discloses a dimension of the light guide in a thickness direction is longer than a beam diameter of the image light guided in the light guide, the thickness direction being defined by a distance between the light-emission surface and the outside surface opposite to the light- emission surface, to guide the image light within the light guide without total internal reflection (Figs. 29A-29B). This claim contains only a functional limitation on the thickness of the light guide relative to light capable of use in the system. The claim does not positively recite a light source and thus the structure of the optical system (i.e. thickness) need only be capable of performing the function for anticipation of the structure.
Regarding claim 11, Grabarnik discloses a virtual image display device comprising: the image display element (illumination system 200, Fig. 29A-29B); and the virtual image display device (Figs. 29A-29B).
Regarding claim 12, Grabarnik discloses a head-mounted display comprising the virtual image display device (“systems disclosed herein are aimed at achieving high image resolution with a compact size of the projection optics, which potentially may fit in the frame of conventional goggles”; [0006]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grabarnik as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of US PG Pub. 2022/0357499 to Danziger et al. (hereinafter Danziger).
Regarding claim 2, Grabarnik discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose wherein formulae below are satisfied: 60 < TA ≤ 100 and 0 ≤ TB < 30 where: TA indicates the first transmittance (%) in the first polarization direction with respect to the vertical incident light, and TB indicates the second transmittance (%) in the second polarization direction with respect to the vertical incident light.
Danziger discloses wherein formulae below are satisfied: 60 < TA ≤ 100 and 0 ≤ TB < 30 where: TA indicates the first transmittance (%) in the first polarization direction with respect to the vertical incident light, and TB indicates the second transmittance (%) in the second polarization direction with respect to the vertical incident light (“the two sets 16, 18 of internal surfaces include coatings that are selectively reflective to the orthogonal polarizations in a complementary fashion” and “the reflectivity characteristics of such a dielectric coating for p-polarization and s-polarization across angle of incidence (AOI)”, Fig. 2; [0121]-[0122]).
PNG
media_image1.png
386
960
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the claimed fomulae as taught by Danziger with the system as disclosed by Grabarnik. The motivation would have been to adjustably control image color differences and image intensity ([0119]).
Regarding claim 4, Grabarnik discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose wherein a formula below is satisfied: 5< RBMIN<30 where: RBMIN indicates a lowest second reflectance (%) in the second polarization direction among second reflectances of the multiple partial reflectors in the second polarization direction.
Danziger discloses wherein a formula below is satisfied: 5 < RBMIN<30 where: RBMIN indicates a lowest second reflectance (%) in the second polarization direction among second reflectances of the multiple partial reflectors in the second polarization direction (“the two sets 16, 18 of internal surfaces include coatings that are selectively reflective to the orthogonal polarizations in a complementary fashion” and “the reflectivity characteristics of such a dielectric coating for p-polarization and s-polarization across angle of incidence (AOI)”, Fig. 2; [0121]-[0122]).
PNG
media_image1.png
386
960
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the claimed fomulae as taught by Danziger with the system as disclosed by Grabarnik. The motivation would have been to adjustably control image color differences and image intensity ([0119]).
Regarding claim 5, Grabarnik discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose wherein a formula below is satisfied: 0.1 < RBMIN/RBMAX< 0.4 where: RBMIN indicates a lowest second reflectance (%) in the second polarization direction among second reflectances of the multiple partial reflectors in the second polarization direction, and RBMAX indicates a highest second reflectance (%) in the second polarization direction among the second reflectances.
Danziger discloses a formula below is satisfied: 0.1 < RBMIN/RBMAX< 0.4 where: RBMIN indicates a lowest second reflectance (%) in the second polarization direction among second reflectances of the multiple partial reflectors in the second polarization direction, and RBMAX indicates a highest second reflectance (%) in the second polarization direction among the second reflectances (“the two sets 16, 18 of internal surfaces include coatings that are selectively reflective to the orthogonal polarizations in a complementary fashion” and “the reflectivity characteristics of such a dielectric coating for p-polarization and s-polarization across angle of incidence (AOI)”, Fig. 2; [0121]-[0122]).
PNG
media_image1.png
386
960
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the claimed fomulae as taught by Danziger with the system as disclosed by Grabarnik. The motivation would have been to adjustably control image color differences and image intensity ([0119]).
Regarding claim 6, Grabarnik discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose a formula below is satisfied: 0<RAMAX<25 where: RAMAX indicates a highest first reflectance (%) in the first polarization direction among first reflectances of the multiple partial reflectors in the first polarization direction.
Danziger discloses a formula below is satisfied: 0<RAMAX<25 where: RAMAX indicates a highest first reflectance (%) in the first polarization direction among first reflectances of the multiple partial reflectors in the first polarization direction (“the two sets 16, 18 of internal surfaces include coatings that are selectively reflective to the orthogonal polarizations in a complementary fashion” and “the reflectivity characteristics of such a dielectric coating for p-polarization and s-polarization across angle of incidence (AOI)”, Fig. 2; [0121]-[0122]).
PNG
media_image1.png
386
960
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the claimed fomulae as taught by Danziger with the system as disclosed by Grabarnik. The motivation would have been to adjustably control image color differences and image intensity ([0119]).
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grabarnik as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of US PG Pub. 2024/0210611 to Xu et al. (hereinafter Xu).
Regarding claim 7, Grabarnik discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose a dimmer to reduce light entering the light guide through the outer surface.
Xu discloses a dimmer to reduce light entering the light guide through the outer surface ([0092]).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a dimmer as taught by Xu with the system as disclosed by Grabarnik. The motivation would have been to attenuate the external light to a level when the external light does not overwhelm the displayed images or videos ([0092]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J STANFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3337. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-4PM PST 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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571)272-2333. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER STANFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872