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. 18440532 filed on 12/13/2024 is presented for examination by the examiner.
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I Claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 03/05/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 12-24 are canceled by the Applicant pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Inventions II and III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/05/2026. New claims 25 to 37 that according to the Applicant read on elected invention I have been added to the claims. However, claims 31-37 are substantially based on non-elected invention III now canceled claims 18-24, drawn to an optical system, which is different from the elected invention I.
Newly submitted claims 31-37 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Claims 31-37 are substantially based on non-elected invention III now canceled claims 18-24, drawn to an optical system, which is different from the elected invention I. Specifically, the elected invention I has materially different design, mode of operation, and effect from claims 31-37 based on non-elected invention III, as invention I is characterized by light source, spatial light modulator (SLM) , optics and waveguide and a lens between the light source and SLM and configured to mitigate a brightness non-uniformity imparted on the light by the optics by directing the illumination towards the spatial light modulator with a non-uniform brightness across a field of view of SLM, and therefore different from claims 31-37. Invention I is primarily based on mitigating non-uniformity of illumination light by optics, while allowing individual LED control in source regions. On the other hand new claims 31-37 based on non-elected invention III is based on optical system characterized by light source, display panel, waveguide and a lens directing illumination to the display panel, where the light source has a light emitting diode (LED) substrate, a first drive line coupled to a first portion of the LED substrate, and a second drive line coupled to a second portion of the LED substrate, where the first and second portions of the LED substrate are configured to emit at least a portion of the illumination and the first portion of the LED substrate and the second portion of the LED substrate are independently driven using the first drive line and the second drive line, which is different from elected invention I.
Since this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, new claims 31-37 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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.
Priority
As required by e M.P.E.P. 201.04, 210, 214.03, acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on Continuation of PCT/US2022/040814, filed 08/18/2022, that claims priority from provisional application US #63240111, filed 09/02/2021.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are not acceptable for examination purposes.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitations where “:a third segment having a third optical axis that is non-parallel with respect to the first and second optical axes; and a fourth segment having a fourth optical axis that is non-parallel with respect to the first, second, and third optical axes” are recited in claims 4 and 26, 27 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections/Claim Interpretations
Claims 7-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 7-10 recite the limitations of methods of particular use of the structures of the device as e.g. spatial light modulator being driven, or light emitting diode (LED) substrate driven, and /pr the first and second drive lines are independently driven. However, these and similar limitations are with respect to the manner in which a claimed structures are intended to be used and driven. Moreover, there is ambiguity about what or who is driving the above structures and how is this driving resulting in specific effects are recited. It is held that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Because the prior art device meets all the structural limitations of the claimed apparatus it therefore also meets the limitation regarding e.g. driving light modulator, driving LEDs, etc. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was “for mixing flowing developer material” and the body of the claim recited “means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material”. The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.). See MPEP § 2114. Additionally, because the structure of the claimed system, as identified below, is the same as that claimed, it must inherently perform the same function e.g. driving light modulator, driving LEDs, etc. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (The absence of a disclosure in a prior art reference relating to function did not defeat the Board’s finding of anticipation of claimed apparatus because the limitations at issue were found to be inherent in the prior art reference); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2114.The above noted limitations will be treated to the full extent of the recited structures. Appropriate correction suggested if different interpretations are sought.
Claims 9 and 10 depend on claim 8 and therefore also inherit the same issues.
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 1-4, 6, 11, and 25-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xiao et al. (hereafter Xiao, of record, see IDS dated 02/13/2024), US 20200300442 A1.
In regard to independent claim 1, Xiao teaches (see Figs. 1-4) a display configured to display light (i.e. optical apparatus 100, 200 and its illuminating module 11, 11’, e.g. 100, 200, as head-mounted display or projected display, see abstract, paragraphs [01,03-21, 28-37, 39-40, 44-49], see Figs. 1-4), comprising:
a light source configured to emit illumination (light source 111, 111’ generating illumination beam, paragraphs [33-39], Figs. 1-4);
a spatial light modulator configured to generate the light using the illumination (as optical modulation module with light valve 131 receives illumination beam and reflects it addition image information, paragraphs [34-36, 49], Figs. 1, 4);
optics that include a waveguide configured to propagate the light via total internal reflection (e.g. optics of 100 with 11, including light guiding module 15, paragraphs [31-39, 49], Figs. 1,4); and
a lens optically interposed between the light source and the spatial light modulator (lens with light uniformizer 115 lens array and first unit 117, between 11 and 131, paragraphs [31-35, 39, Figs. 1-4) wherein the lens (115,117) is configured to mitigate a brightness non-uniformity imparted on the light by the optics by directing the illumination towards the spatial light modulator with a non-uniform brightness across a field of view of the spatial light modulator (i.e. as light uniformizer 115 lens array and first unit 117 direct non-uniform distribution of brightness illumination from 11 to 131, and are configured uniformize the collimated beam, e.g. paragraphs [33-34, 39, 49]).
Regarding claims 2 and 25, Xiao teaches (see Figs. 1-4) that the lens (115,117) comprises: a first segment having a first optical axis (i.e. as 115 lenslet and corresponding segment of 117 having/on optical axis L2, e.g. paragraphs [32-34, 39, 49], Figs. 2-3); and
a second segment on the first segment and having a second optical axis that is non-parallel/tilted with respect to the first optical axis (i.e. as another 115 lenslet on first 115 lenslet and corresponding segment of 117 spaced distance R and having different optical axis corresponding to A central optical axis, e.g. paragraphs [32-34, 39, 49], Figs. 2-3).
Regarding claims 3 and 29, Xiao teaches (see Figs. 1-4) that the second optical axis is tilted at a non-zero angle less than 30 degrees, and for claim 29 between 5 degrees and 35 degrees, with respect to the first optical axis (i.e. as depicted optical axis A is tiled by less than 30 degrees from L2 optical axis, as depicted in Fig. 2, paragraphs [32-34, 39, 49], similarly in Fig. 3).
Regarding claims 4 and 26-27, Xiao teaches (see Figs. 1-4) that the lens (115,117) further comprises: a third segment having a third optical axis that is non-parallel/tilted with respect to the first and second optical axes (i.e. as another/third 115 lenslet and corresponding segment of 117 spaced a different distance R and having different optical axis corresponding to another A optical axis, different from A, L2 axes, see e.g. paragraphs [32-34, 39, 49], Figs. 2-3); and
a fourth segment having a fourth optical axis that is non-parallel/tilted with respect to the first, second, and third optical axes (i.e. as yet another/fourth 115 lenslet and corresponding segment of 117 spaced a another different distance R and having different optical axis corresponding to another different A optical axis, different from another A, A and L2 axes, given that 115 is lens array with lenslets as depicted in Figs. 2,3, paragraphs [32-34, 39, 49], Figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 28, Xiao teaches (see Figs. 1-4) that the first segment is partially rotationally symmetric about the first optical axis (i.e. as 115 lenslet and corresponding segment of 117 at least partially rotationally symmetric about optical axis L2, e.g. paragraphs [32-34, 39, 49], Figs. 2-3), and wherein the second segment is partially rotationally symmetric about the second optical axis (i.e. as another 115 lenslet and corresponding segment of 117 spaced distance R and at least partially rotationally symmetric about optical axis A central optical axis, e.g. paragraphs [32-34, 39, 49], Figs. 2-3).
Regarding claims 6 and 30, Xiao teaches (see Figs. 1-4) that the spatial light modulator comprises a display panel selected from the group consisting of: a digital micromirror device (DMD) panel, a liquid crystal on silicon (LCOS) panel, a ferroelectric liquid crystal on silicon (fLCOS) panel, and a transmissive liquid crystal panel (i.e. as display panel of light valve light modulator 131 as LCoS (Liquid Crystal on Silicon) reflective panel or digital micromirror device, paragraphs [34-36, 49], Figs. 1, 4).
Regarding claim 11, Xiao teaches (see Figs. 1-4) further comprising: an input coupler on the waveguide and configured to couple the light into the waveguide (i.e. given the image beam having image/image information passes modulation module enters the light guiding module, means that 15 has input coupler, e.g. including second lens 135, see abstract, paragraphs [04-07,28-31,35], as depicted in Figs. 1,4); and an output coupler on the waveguide and configured to couple the light out of the waveguide (i.e. given that the image beam travels in the light guiding module and leaves the light guiding module and is received by user's eyes means that means that 15 has output coupler see abstract, paragraphs [04-07,28-31,35], as depicted in Figs. 1,4).
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao et al. (hereafter Xiao, of record, see IDS dated 02/13/2024) US 20200300442 A1 in view of Melax et al. (hereafter Melax) WO 2021055256 A1.
Regarding claim 5, Xiao teaches (see Figs. 1-4) that the lens has curved surface (i.e. as lens, light uniformizer 115 lens array and first unit 117, have curved surface, paragraphs [31-35, 39, Figs. 1-4), but is silent that it has a freeform curved surface.
However, Melax teaches in the same field of invention of optical system(s) including virtual reality and augmented reality headsets may include displays with optical elements that allow users to view the displays (see Figs. 1-8, abstract, paragraphs [02-06, 17-30,34-43, 49-57,81,89]) and further teaches that the lens has a freeform curved surface (i.e. as lens 34 including one or more lenses 60, that help direct image light towards waveguide, and that have form curved surface, and that provide desired magnification profile, allowing image light to impart different optical powers on image light, e.g. in different portions of the image to produce statically foveated image, paragraphs [49-55,81]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt and modify the lens of optical apparatus of Xiao to include lens with free form curved surface according to teachings of Melax in order to help direct image light towards waveguide, and provide desired magnification profile, e.g. allowing image light to impart different optical powers on image light, e.g. in different portions of the image to produce statically foveated image, (see Melax paragraphs [49-55,81]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao et al. (hereafter Xiao, of record, see IDS dated 02/13/2024) US 20200300442 A1 in view of Yang US 20160112690 A1.
Regarding claim 7, Xiao teaches (see Figs. 1-4) that the spatial light modulator is driven using image data that is modified across the field of view of the spatial light modulator (i.e. as optical modulation module with light valve 131 configured to receive the illuminating beam from illumination module 11 and transform the illuminating beam to an image beam having an image, paragraphs [28,31, 34-36, 49], Figs. 1, 4), but is silent to at least partially mitigate the brightness non-uniformity imparted on the light by the optics.
However, Yang teaches in close field of invention of display uniformity compensation method, an optical modulation apparatus, a signal processor, and a projection system (Figs. 1-11, abstract, paragraphs [02-11,28-37, 58-65,171-180]), and further teaches image data that is modified across the field of view of the spatial light modulator to at least partially mitigate the brightness non-uniformity imparted on the light by the optics (i.e. as using and driving the optical modulator unit and modulating original light according to the full region image data from the signal processor, and acquiring a compensation light and modulating the compensation light according to the compensation image data from the signal processor, thus providing and improving a uniformity degree of brightness of an image on a display unit, paragraphs [02-11,28-37, 171-180]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt optical modulation module with light valve of optical apparatus of Xiao to be driven with image date and modulating original and compensation light according to teachings of Yang in order to provide and improve a uniformity degree of brightness of an image on a display unit, (see Yang, paragraphs [02-11,28-37, 171-180]).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao et al. (hereafter Xiao, of record, see IDS dated 02/13/2024) US 20200300442 A1 in view of Seo et al. (hereafter Seo, of record, see IDS dated 02/13/2024) US 20110115828 A1.
Regarding claim 8, Xiao teaches (see Figs. 1-4) the light source (light source 111, 111’ generating illumination beam, paragraphs [33-39], Figs. 1-4) but is silent that it comprises a light emitting diode (LED) substrate driven to at least partially mitigate the brightness non-uniformity imparted on the light by the optics.
However, Seo teaches in related field of invention of a Display Device And Driving Method Thereof (see Figs. 1-4, abstract, paragraphs [9-19, 28-37, 40-54]) and further teaches light source has light emitting diode (LED) substrate driven to at least partially mitigate the brightness non-uniformity imparted on the light by the optics (i.e. light source 210 has substrate driving board with LEDs in blocks B, where each LED is controlled independently with driving and controlling parts 220, 310, providing desired illumination intensity distribution and achieving illumination distribution substantially uniform, and or operated to illuminate different light intensities, based on the weight values and the representative values of the image blocks G, see paragraphs [47-52, 31-36]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the light source of Xiao to include substrate driving board with LEDs in blocks that each LED is controlled independently making illumination distribution substantially uniform according to teachings of Seo in order to provide desired illumination intensity distribution and achieving illumination distribution that is substantially uniform, and/or LEDs source that is operated to illuminate different light intensities, based on the weight values and the representative values of the image (see paragraphs [47-52, 31-36]).
Regarding claim 9, the Xiao-Seo combination teaches the invention as set forth above, and further teaches (see Figs. 1-4) that the LED substrate comprises (i.e. source 11,11’ as modified in combination with Sao) at least a first LED and a second LED and wherein the light source is configured to at least partially mitigate the brightness non-uniformity imparted on the light by the optics by driving the first LED but not the second LED (i.e. as 214 has LEDs where each block has one or more LEDs e.g. white, RGB, that are individually controlled, driving one and another LED, see Seo, paragraphs [47-52, 31-36]).
Regarding claim 10, the Xiao-Seo combination teaches the invention as set forth above, and further teaches (see Figs. 1-4) comprising at least first and second drive lines coupled to the LED substrate (i.e. as modified source 11,11’ including substrate 214 with separate lines connected to each of LEDs in each block that are individually controlled, see connecting lines 360, Seo, paragraphs [47-52, 31-36]), wherein the first and second drive lines are each coupled to one or more light emitting regions on the LED substrate over a respective plurality of conductive vias (214 with separate lines connected to each of LEDs in each region(s) block B, and where LEDs are individually controlled, Seo, paragraphs [47-52, 31-36]), and wherein the first and second drive lines are independently driven to at least partially mitigate the brightness non- uniformity imparted on the light by the optics ( as due to combination, separate lines connected to LEDs in each region(s) block B, and individually controlled, providing desired illumination intensity distribution and achieving illumination distribution substantially uniform, Seo, paragraphs [47-52, 31-36]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. McGuire et al. US 20070252954 A1 also disclose features of instant invention (see Figs. 10-21, and their descriptions).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIN PICHLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4015. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am -5:00pm.
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 K 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.
/MARIN PICHLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872