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) 1-2, 5, 10-13 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harder et al. (PGPUB 20210026147).
Regarding claim 1, Harder discloses a method comprising:
determining an optical angle of an output of a display projector assembly (80) relative to a base (40) of the display projector assembly ([0054] and [0062] where direction of the beam is projected is determined);
physically altering, based on the determined optical angle of the output of the display projector assembly, a mating structure included within a frame such that, when the base of the display projector assembly is mated to the frame via the mating structure, the output of the display projector assembly is optically aligned with the frame along a predetermined optical axis (one or more of 130 is used to physically alter the shape of the assembly, 40, see Figs. 5 and 6, based on the determined angle of the light); and
mating the base of the display projector assembly to the frame via the altered mating structure ([0057] where 122 is described as coupling 80 and 40).
Regarding claim 2, Harder discloses wherein:
determining the optical angle of the output of the display projector assembly relative to the base of the display projector assembly comprises measuring the optical alignment of the output of the display projector assembly relative to a datum of the display projector assembly ([0054] and [0062] where direction of the beam is projected is determined); and
altering the mating structure within the frame comprises altering the mating structure to account for an angle of the output of the display projector assembly relative to the datum of the display projector assembly ([0057]-[0058]).
Regarding claim 5, Harder discloses wherein:
the display projector assembly comprises a mating surface (82); and
mating the display projector assembly to the frame via the altered mating structure comprises mating the mating surface of the display projector assembly to the altered mating structure (Figs. 5-6 where 130 and 82 are mated together as well as 122 and 80).
Regarding claim 10, Harder discloses further comprising: mounting a waveguide to the frame; and aligning the output of the display projector assembly with an input grating of the waveguide (Fig. 3 where 80 is aligned with the input gratings of 50).
Regarding claim 11, Harder discloses wherein the frame is a head-mounted display frame (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, Harder discloses A system comprising:
an optical sensor configured to determine an optical angle of an output of a display projector assembly relative to a base of the display projector assembly ([0013], [0054] and [0062] where direction of the beam is projected is determined);
an altering device configured to physically alter a mating structure included within a frame based on the determined optical angle of the display projector assembly such that, when the display projector assembly is mated to the frame via the mating structure, the output of the display projector assembly is optically aligned with the frame along a predetermined optical axis (one or more of 130 is used to physically alter the shape of the assembly, 40, see Figs. 5 and 6, based on the determined angle of the light); and
a mating device configured to mate the display projector assembly to the frame via the altered mating structure ([0057] where 122 is described as coupling 80 and 40).
Regarding claim 13, Harder discloses wherein the optical sensor is further configured to determine the optical angle of the output of the display projector by measuring the optical angle of the output of the display projector assembly relative to a datum of the display projector assembly ([0054] and [0062] where direction of the beam is projected is determined, which is understood to be an angle or derived by the angle).
Regarding claim 19, Harder discloses an apparatus comprising:
a display projector assembly having an output at a predetermined optical angle relative to a base of the display projector assembly (80); and
a frame (40) mated to the display projector assembly via a mating structure included in the frame (130), the mating structure machined based on the predetermined optical angle of the display projector such that an output of the display projector assembly is optically aligned with the frame along a predetermined optical axis ([0058]).
Regarding claim 20, Harder discloses wherein the frame comprises a head-mounted display frame (10).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 3 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harder in view of Robbins et al. (PGPUB 20140375681).
Regarding claim 3, Harder discloses the use of a collimator ([0035]), but does not disclose wherein determining the optical angle of the output of the display projector assembly relative to the base of the display projector assembly comprises measuring the output of the display projector assembly via a collimator.
However, Robbins teaches a method for alignment detection of a head mounted display ([0006]-[0007]) wherein determining the optical angle of the output of the display projector assembly relative to the base of the display projector assembly comprises measuring the output of the display projector assembly via a collimator ([0007]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine Harder and Robbins such that the collimator was used for the measurement of the display projector angle motivated by improving displacement angle measurement accuracy.
Regarding claim 14, Harder discloses the use of a collimator ([0035]), but does not disclose wherein the optical sensor is further configured to determine the optical angle of the output of the display projector assembly by measuring the output of the display projector assembly via a collimator.
However, Robbins teaches a method for alignment detection of a head mounted display ([0006]-[0007]) wherein the optical sensor is further configured to determine the optical angle of the output of the display projector assembly by measuring the output of the display projector assembly via a sensor and collimator ([0005] and [0007]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine Harder and Robbins such that the collimator was used for the measurement of the display projector angle motivated by improving displacement angle measurement accuracy.
Claims 4, 6-9 and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harder in view of Kirschner et al. (USPAT 4647967).
Regarding claim 4, Harder does not disclose wherein:
the mating structure comprises a machinable surface; and
altering the mating structure comprises machining at least one aspect of the machinable surface.
However, Kirschner teaches a heads-up display device wherein the display (22) and its mating surface (24) are both machined.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine Harder and Kirschner such that the mating surfaces were machined motivated by improving alignment accuracy (Col. 4 lines 17-27).
Regarding claim 6, Harder discloses at least one mounting post (82), but does not disclose wherein the mating structure comprises at least one mounting post configured to be received by a corresponding post receptacle included in the display projector assembly.
However, Kirschner teaches a heads-up display device comprising a display (22) and a mating surface (24) wherein the two surfaces are aligned with the support of precision alignment pins (30-32).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine Harder and Kirschner such that the mating surfaces included alignment pins motivated by improving alignment accuracy (Col. 4 lines 17-27).
Regarding claim 7, modified Harder does not disclose wherein altering the mating structure comprises adjusting a length of the at least one mounting post based on the determined optical alignment of the display projector assembly.
However, making the length of a mounting post is obvious since it would accomplish the same practical function as moving Harder’s block 130 forward or backwards. Further, making a part adjustable is obvious in light of In re Stevens, 212 F.2d 197, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to adjust the pin heights motivated by improving display angle accuracy.
Regarding claim 8, modified Harder discloses wherein the at least one mounting post comprises at least three mounting posts (30-32 of Kirschner).
Regarding claim 9, modified Harder discloses wherein, for each mounting post included in the mating structure, mating the display projector assembly to the frame via the altered mating structure comprises causing the post receptacle to receive the mounting post (Col. 4 lines 17-27).
Regarding claim 15, Harder does not disclose wherein: the mating structure of the frame comprises a machinable planar surface; and the altering device is further configured to physically alter the mating structure by machining at least one aspect of the machinable planar surface.
However, Kirschner teaches a heads-up display device wherein the display (22) and its mating surface (24) are both machined.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine Harder and Kirschner such that the mating surfaces were machined motivated by improving alignment accuracy (Col. 4 lines 17-27).
Regarding claim 16, modified Harder discloses wherein:
the display projector assembly comprises a mounting structure (Figs. 4-6 of Harder where any of 122, 130 and 110 could be considered a mounting structure); and
the mating device mates the display projector assembly to the frame via the machined mating structure by mating the mounting structure of the display projector assembly to the altered mating structure of the frame (Col. 4 lines 17-27 of Kirschner where the mating structures are machined and Figs. 4-6 of harder where 40 is mated to 122, 130 and 82, via 130).
Regarding claim 17, Harder discloses at least one mounting post (82), but does not disclose wherein the frame comprises at least one mounting post configured to be received by a corresponding post receptacle included in the display projector assembly.
However, Kirschner teaches a heads-up display device comprising a display (22) and a mating surface (24) wherein the two surfaces are aligned with the support of precision alignment pins (30-32).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine Harder and Kirschner such that the mating surfaces included alignment pins motivated by improving alignment accuracy (Col. 4 lines 17-27).
Regarding claim 18, modified Harder discloses wherein the mating device is further configured to, for each mounting post included in the frame, mate the display projector assembly to the frame via the altered mating structure by causing the corresponding post receptacle to receive the mounting post (Col. 4 lines 17-27).
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAVIS S FISSEL whose telephone number is (313)446-6573. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Stephone Allen can be reached on (571) 272-2434. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TRAVIS FISSEL/
Examiner, Art Unit 2872