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 § 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) 1-4, 9-13, 22-25 and 30-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kramida “Resolving the vergence-Accomodation Conflict in Head-Mounted Displays” (IDS Reference).
Regarding claim 1, Kramida teaches a multiplane nanophotonic voxel engine comprising: a laser light source (page 10 section 3.8 1st paragraph RGB laser); and a photonic integrated circuit, wherein the photonic integrated circuit comprises a plurality of beam-steering cantilevers (flexible cantilever 1st paragraph) and a plurality of modulators (scanner 1st paragraph).
Regarding claim 2, Kramida teaches the multiplane nanophotonic voxel engine of claim 1, wherein the laser light source emits light having at least three different wavelengths (Red Green Blue see 1st paragraph).
Regarding claim 3, Kramida teaches te multiplane nanophotonic voxel engine of claim 1, wherein the laser light source comprises at least a red laser, a green laser, and a blue laser (1st paragraph red green blue).
Regarding claim 4, Kramida teaches the multiplane nanophotonic voxel engine of claim 1, wherein the plurality of beam-steering cantilevers are piezoelectrically actuated beam-steering cantilevers (piezoelectric actuator see 1st paragraph).
Regarding claim 9, Kramida teaches the multiplane nanophotonic voxel engine of claim 1, wherein each beam-steering cantilever in the plurality of beam-steering cantilevers comprises one or more waveguides (array of scanned fiber projectors see 2nd paragraph).
Regarding claim 10 Kramida teaches the multiplane nanophotonic voxel engine of claim 9, wherein the one or more waveguides emit modulated light (see 1st paragraph).
Regarding claim 11, Kramida teaches the multiplane nanophotonic voxel engine of claim 9, wherein a first waveguide has a first length, and a second waveguide has a second length (see 2nd paragraph different offsets).
Regarding claim 12, Kramida teaches the multiplane nanophotonic voxel engine of claim 11, wherein selectively sending light to the first waveguide causes the first waveguide to emit light onto a first image plane (own focal depth see 2nd paragraph).
Regarding claim 13, Kamida teaches the multiplane nanophotonic voxel engine of claim 1, wherein the plurality of modulators (2nd paragraph x-y scanner and guiding optic and bevelled array ) are configured to distribute light to the plurality of beam-steering (scanned fiber arrays paragraph 3 of section 3.8) cantilevers (1st paragraph).
Regarding claim 22, Kamida teaches method comprising: receiving light from a laser light source (section 3.8 1st paragraph); distributing the light to a plurality of beam-steering cantilevers (1st paragraph), wherein each beam-steering cantilever comprises one or more waveguides (2nd paragraph beveled array of scanned fiber projectors); and actuating at least one of the plurality of beam-steering cantilevers to cause at least one of the one or more respective waveguides to emit light (1st paragraph actuation and projection).
Regarding claim 23, Kamida teaches the method of claim 22, wherein the laser light source emits light having at least three different wavelengths (red green and blue 1st paragraph).
Regarding claim 24, Kamida teaches the method of claim 22, wherein the laser light source comprises at least a red laser, a green laser, and a blue laser (1st paragraph).
Regarding claim 25, Kamida teaches the method of claim 22, wherein the plurality of beam-steering cantilevers are piezoelectrically actuated beam-steering cantilevers (1st paragraph).
Regarding claim 30, Kamida teaches the method of claim 22, wherein a first waveguide of the one or more waveguides has a first length, and a second waveguide of the one or more waveguides has a second length (bevelled array and offset see 2nd paragraph).
Regarding claim 31, Kamida teaches the method of claim 30, wherein selectively sending light to the first waveguide causes the first waveguide to emit light onto a first image plane (multiple focal planes see 2nd paragraph).
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) 5-8, 14-21, 26-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kramida.
Regarding claim 5/ 26, Kramida teaches the multiplane nanophotonic voxel engine/method of claim 4 /25, since Kramida teaches a piezoelectric actuator (paragraph 1 of section 3.8) then the piezoelectrically actuated beam-steering cantilevers comprise a piezoelectric film is considered obvious as piezoelectric film is well-known form of piezoelectric actuation and examiner takes official notice of this.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute piezoelectric film for the piezo-electric actuator of Kramida so as to reduce the size of the device.
Regarding claim 6 / 27, Kramida teaches the multiplane nanophotonic voxel engine/ method of claim 5 / 26, wherein the piezoelectrically actuated beam-steering cantilevers are actuated by applying a voltage to the piezoelectric film (see paragraph 1 increasing amplitude of a drive signal).
Regarding claim 7 / 28, Kramida teaches the multiplane nanophotonic voxel engine / method of claim 4 / 25, wherein the piezoelectrically actuated beam-steering cantilevers comprise a piezoelectric stack. Since Kramida teaches a piezoelectric actuator (paragraph 1 of section 3.8) then the piezoelectrically actuated beam-steering cantilevers comprise a piezoelectric stack is considered obvious as piezoelectric stack is well-known form of piezoelectric actuation and examiner takes official notice of this.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute piezoelectric film for the piezo-electric actuator of Kramida so as to provide more precision actuation.
Regarding claim 8/ 28, Kramida teaches the multiplane nanophotonic voxel engine / method of claim 7 / 27, wherein the piezoelectrically actuated beam-steering cantilevers are actuated by applying a voltage to the piezoelectric stack (see paragraph 1 increasing amplitude of a drive signal).
Regarding 16-17, Kramida teaches the limitations of claims 16-17 except the multiplane nanophotonic voxel engine enables projection of light over at least ten image planes; wherein each image plane has 4K resolution. However Kramida does teach multiple image planes (see 2nd paragraph of section 3.8). The explicit recitation of at least ten image planes does not impose any additional structure since the current specification does not tie this or the image plane having 4K resolution. Assuming there is no novel hardware or structure not already claimed to enable this than ten image planes and 4K resolution (an industry standard) would be considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 18, Kramida teaches the voxel engine of claim 16, wherein the light comprises
light having at least three different wavelengths (red green and blue see 1st paragraph of section 3.8).
Regarding claim 19-21, Kramida teaches the limitations of claim 1, while Kramida does not directly teach wherein the multiplane nanophotonic voxel engine has a refresh rate of at least 100,000 frames per second, the multiplane nanophotonic voxel engine consumes less than one milliwatt of power per megavoxel, wherein the photonic integrated circuit has an area less than 100 mm2, these limitations are not tied to any specific structure not taught by Kamida. They appear to be performance targets and the specification does not identify if they are the result of a novel structure. Absent this they would be considered routine optimization as efficiency (power per megavoxel), reduction in size (photonic IC area) and performance (high refresh rates) will always be an end goal and thus achievable through routine optimization and thus obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kramida in view of Dolgoff JP 2021-532947.
Regarding claims 14-15, Kramida teaches the limitations of claim 1 except the plurality of modulators comprise broadband switches or Mach-Zehnder interferometer switches. However Dolgoff teaches Mach-Zehnder interferometer switches (a form of broadband switch) for correction of acoustic, mechanical and thermal perturbations of fiber optics (see page 34 2nd last paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kramdia in view of Dolgoff to for correct for acoustic, mechanical and thermal perturbations of the fiber optics.
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
Prosecution Insights