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 statement (IDS) submitted on 8/08/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pat. No. 11,480,410 to Parker et al. (hereinafter Parker).
Regarding claim 1, Parker discloses a display unit (Figs. 8A-8B) comprising: a mounting member mounted on a first accommodation member (“holographic display system 120 can be a separate device (as shown in FIGS. 1, 6, and 8A), removably couplable from a direct view optic”, Fig. 8A-8B) configured to accommodate a lens group including an objective lens (objective lens group 108, Fig. 8A-8B) and an eyepiece (ocular lens group 116, Fig. 8A-8B); a display element that emits video light (holographic displays 400 embodied in Fig. 2A, 2B, 8A, 8B); a first deflection member (“holographic display system 400 has a form factor that allows for a light engine (found in enclosure 404) to reside external to a direct view optic while at least a portion of waveguide 406 (e.g., image portion 412) can reside inside the scope at a desired location” and holographic display 400 has HOE deflectors 140A and 140B, Figs.2A-2B, 7-8A-8B) that deflects the video light emitted from the display element; and a second accommodation member configured to accommodate the display element and the first deflection member (Figs. 2A-2B, 7, 8A-8B), wherein the second accommodation member is mounted on the first accommodation member, such that the first deflection member is disposed on an axis of the lens group (Figs. 8A-8B), by the mounting member, and when the first deflection member is disposed on the axis of the lens group, an axis of the video light deflected by the first deflection member overlaps with the axis of the lens group (Figs. 8A-8B; col. 4, ln. 51-col. 6, ln. 67 and col. 8, ln. 39-col. 9, ln. 15).
Regarding claim 3, Parker discloses a reflectance of light having a first wavelength range and a reflectance of light having a second wavelength range different from the first wavelength range in the first deflection member are different from each other (“HOEs 140 are translucent selective wavelength gratings that are designed and configured to steer displayable information 152 into and out of image guide 144”).
Regarding claim 4, Parker discloses a second deflection member configured to deflect the video light from the display element toward the first deflection member (HOE 140A, Fig. 2A, 8A-8B).
Regarding claim 9, Parker discloses an optical display device comprising: the display unit according to claim 1; and a long distance viewing device including the lens group (Fig. 8A-8b).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US PG Pub. 20240118532 to Qiu (hereinafter Qiu).
Regarding claim 1, Qiu discloses a display unit (Fig. 7-8) comprising: a mounting member (structure for mounting housing 10a on housing 10b and housing 10c, Fig. 7-8) mounted on a first accommodation member (housings 10b and 10c, Figs. 7-8) configured to accommodate a lens group including an objective lens (objective 2, Fig. 7) and an eyepiece (eyepiece 3, Fig. 8); a display element (microdisplay 11, Fig. 7-8) that emits video light; a first deflection member (beam combiner 12, Fig. 7-8) that deflects the video light emitted from the display element; and a second accommodation member (housing 10a, Fig. 7-8) configured to accommodate the display element and the first deflection member, wherein the second accommodation member is mounted on the first accommodation member (Fig. 7-8), such that the first deflection member is disposed on an axis of the lens group (Figs. 7-8) by the mounting member, and when the first deflection member is disposed on the axis of the lens group, an axis of the video light deflected by the first deflection member overlaps with the axis of the lens group (Fig. 7-8).
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 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of US Pat. No. 9,910,284 to Nortrup et al. (hereinafter Nortrup).
Regarding claim 2, Qiu discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose: a reflection film that reflects at least a portion of the video light is provided at a first surface of the first deflection member on which the video light is incident, and an antireflection film is provided at a second surface of the first deflection member on a side opposite to the first surface.
Nortrup discloses a reflection film (“at least one of the first or second partially reflective surfaces (31055, 31045) can be coated with a notch mirror coating that has a higher reflectivity for wavelength bands included in the image light 31025 as provided by the image source 31010 and has a higher transmitivity for visible wavelengths not included in the wavelength bands included in the image light 31025”, Fig. 34; col. 32, ln. 64-col. 33, ln. 58) that reflects at least a portion of the video light is provided at a first surface of the first deflection member on which the video light is incident (Fig. 34; col. 32, ln. 64-col. 33, ln. 58), and an antireflection film is provided at a second surface of the first deflection member on a side opposite to the first surface (“AR” coating on left surface relative to Fig. 34)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide reflective and AR coatings as claimed as taught by Notrrup with the system as disclosed by Qiu. The motivation would have been to improve display characteristics like selective transmittivity (col. 32, ln. 64-col. 33, ln. 58).
Regarding claim 5, Qiu discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose the first deflection member includes: a first prism having a first incident portion on which the video light from the display element is incident; a second prism having a second incident portion on which observation light from an outside scene is incident; and a reflection film configured to reflect the video light incident from the first incident portion and to transmit light incident from the second incident portion, and the first prism includes an emission portion that emits the video light reflected by the reflection film and the observation light transmitted through the reflection film.
Nortrup discloses the first deflection member includes: a first prism (power lens 31030, Fig. 34) having a first incident portion on which the video light from the display element is incident (video light incident on three surfaces and within the lens body, Fig. 34); a second prism (prism 31050, Fig. 34) having a second incident portion (see-through light 31029 incident on two surfaces of prism 31050 and through prism body, Fig. 34) on which observation light (see-through light 31029, Fig. 34) from an outside scene is incident; and a reflection film (“at least one of the first or second partially reflective surfaces (31055, 31045) can be coated with a notch mirror coating that has a higher reflectivity for wavelength bands included in the image light 31025 as provided by the image source 31010 and has a higher transmitivity for visible wavelengths not included in the wavelength bands included in the image light 31025”, Fig. 34; col. 32, ln. 64-col. 33, ln. 58) configured to reflect the video light incident from the first incident portion and to transmit light incident from the second incident portion (Fig. 34), and the first prism includes an emission portion that emits the video light reflected by the reflection film and the observation light transmitted through the reflection film (Fig. 34).
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 first and second prisms as claimed as taught by Notrrup with the system as disclosed by Qiu. The motivation would have been to improve display characteristics like selective transmittivity (col. 32, ln. 64-col. 33, ln. 58).
Regarding claim 6, Qiu discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose a reflection member provided on a side opposite to the display element with respect to the first deflection member and configured to reflect the video light transmitted through the first deflection member toward the first deflection member; and a quarter-wave plate disposed between the first deflection member and the reflection member, wherein the first deflection member transmits first polarized light toward the reflection member and reflects second polarized light having polarization different from that of the first polarized light.
Nortrup discloses a reflection member (optical element 822 which includes a ¼ wave film for example, Fig. 8) provided on a side opposite to the display element (optical module 202, Fig. 8) with respect to the first deflection member (reflective polarizer 824, Fig. 8) and configured to reflect the video light transmitted through the first deflection member toward the first deflection member; and a quarter-wave plate (optical element 822 which includes a ¼ wave film for example, Fig. 8) disposed between the first deflection member and the reflection member, wherein the first deflection member transmits first polarized light toward the reflection member and reflects second polarized light having polarization different from that of the first polarized light (col. 8, ll. 43-60).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide reflective polarization elements as claimed as taught by Notrrup with the system as disclosed by Qiu. The motivation would have been to improve display characteristics to the user’s eye (col. 8, ll. 43-60).
Regarding claim 7, Qiu discloses a light receiving element (image sensor 14, Fig. 8) provided on a side opposite to the display element with respect to the first deflection member (Fig. 8), wherein some a portion of the observation light incident on the second prism from the second incident portion is incident on the light receiving element (Fig. 8).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of US Pat. No. 11,209,243 to Masarik et al. (hereinafter Masarik).
Regarding claim 8, Qiu discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly an adjustment member configured to adjust an angle of the first deflection member with respect to an optical axis of the video light incident on the first deflection member to be larger than 45° and equal to or smaller than 90°.
Masarik discloses an adjustment member (mirror 118, Fig. 3A-3b, 11A, 12A) configured to adjust an angle of the first deflection member with respect to an optical axis of the video light (optical imaging subsystem 124) incident on the first deflection member to be larger than 45° and equal to or smaller than 90° (Figs. 3A-3b, 11A, 12A).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide an adjustment member as claimed as taught by Masarik with the system as disclosed by Qiu. The motivation would have been to selectively display electronic images to the user (col. 9, ll. 17-31).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parker.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Parker discloses the optical display device according to claim 9 (see above). Further, Parker discloses the objective lens is disposed between the first deflection member and the eyepiece on the axis (unlabeled objective lens is between holographic display 120’ and unlabeled eyepiece in Fig. 9) and the eyepiece is disposed between the objective lens and the first deflection member on the axis (unlabeled eyepiece is between holographic display 120’’’ and unlabeled objective lens in Fig. 9).
Parker does not specifically disclose the embodiment of holographic displays 120’ and 120’’’, though Parker only discloses holographic displays having the structure captured in claim 9 (Fig. 2A-2B, 7, 8A-8B) with first and second accommodation members, first deflection member, and a mounting member.
The modification of the sighting device in Parker to accommodate display placement as required in the claim has been shown to be obvious as a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the obviousness to try a particular position among a finite number of identified, predictable solution with a reasonable expectation of success.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 11480410, US 11112545, US 11019281, US 6123006, CN 107065188, WO 2022170951disclose various optical systems in which transparent displays are incorporated into sighting devices by mounting means.
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