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 .
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant’s arguments filed 2-5-26 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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 of this title, 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.
3. Claims 1-5 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma et al., US 11,561,405 in view of Sharma et al., US 2021/0271317 (hereinafter Sharma ‘317), and in further view of Idris et al., CA 3045192.
Regarding claim 1, Sharma teaches of a virtual image display device (See Fig.1; col.3 lines 1 to col.4 line 25) comprising:
an eye gaze tracking system (See col.7 lines 55 to col.8 line 40) including:
an infrared light source array (See Fig.2, 237; col.5 lines 25 to col.6 line 24 emitting infrared from the sources);
a virtual image generation optical system (See Fig.1, lens; col.5 lines 14-24 virtual reality and focusing lens and/or transparent layer and/or display layer); and
an infrared light detector (See col.4 lines 26-67; col.8 lines 16-54 wavefront sensors),
wherein infrared light sources of the infrared light source array are turned on (See col.4 lines 26-67; col.8 lines 16-54 infrared illumination sources are turned on), rays of infrared light are collimated (See col.6 to col.9 collimated light), the collimated rays of infrared light are made incident on a user's eye at different angles (See col.5-9 the infrared light being incident at different angles on a user’s eye), respectively, and among the rays of infrared light incident on the eye, a ray of infrared light incident on a retina through a pupil and reflected by the retina is detected by the infrared light detector (See col.6-9 which discloses of the light being incident on the eye and retina through the pupil and the retina reflected light directed and detected by the wavefront sensor); and
an image display device (See Fig.1; col.3 lines 1 to col.4 line 25).
Sharma is silent with respect to being sequentially turned on and wherein the rays are collimated by the virtual image generation optical system.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Sharma ‘317 teaches of with respect to being sequentially turned on (See Fig.6; [0021], and [0043]-[0045]) and wherein the rays are collimated by the virtual image generation optical system (See [0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Sharma to have incorporated the teachings of Sharma ‘317 for the mere benefit of being able to compare images to indicate bright pupil conditions (See Sharma,‘317, [0045]).
The combination of Sharma and Sharma ‘317 is silent with respect to wherein all of the light sources are sequentially turned on in a time shorter than a time for the time display device to display one frame.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Idris teaches of wherein all of the light sources are sequentially turned on in a time shorter than a time for the display device to display one frame (See Pages 19-20 and 28-30 which discloses of sequentially illuminating the eye which occurs before WHUD is able to and projects visible display content thereby being a time shorter since it occurs before the display device displays any content).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Sharma and Sharma ‘317 to have incorporated the teachings of Idris for the mere benefit of ensuring that all of the lights and captured eye images are captured such that the image displayed is more accurately reflected.
Regarding claim 2, the combination teaches of the virtual image display device according to claim 1 (See analysis of claim 1; Sharma ‘317 Fig.8); wherein the infrared light source array is incorporated into the image display device (See Sharma, Fig.2; col.5-9 display device construed to be that of the entire device/glasses and/or just the displaying element; Sharma ‘317, Figs. 1A; Fig.8; [0020]; [0054]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination teaches the virtual image display device according to claim 1 (See analysis of claims 1-2), wherein the image display device includes a region through which infrared light is transmitted (See Sharma, Fig.2; col.5-9), and the infrared light source array is disposed on a side opposite to a visual recognition side of the image display device (See Sharma, Fig.2; col.5-9 illuminators are opposite the wavefront sensor; Sharma ‘317, Figs. 1A-1B. It should further be noted that the visual recognition side can be either side as the wavefront sensors recognizes visuals as well as just the display element).
Regarding claim 4, the combination teaches the virtual image display device according to claim 2, wherein the infrared light detector is incorporated into the image display device (See Sharma, Fig.2; col.5-9 wavefront sensors are part of the glasses/display image device of the glasses; Sharma ‘317, Figs. 1A-1B).
Regarding claim 5, the combination teaches the virtual image display device according to claim 2, wherein the image display device includes a region through which infrared light is transmitted (See Sharma, Fig.2; col.5-9), and the infrared light detector is disposed on a side opposite to a visual recognition side of the image display device (See Sharma, Fig.2; col.5-9 sensors are opposite the display element; Sharma ‘317, Figs. 1A-1B. It should further be noted that the visual recognition side can be either side as the wavefront sensors recognizes visuals as well as just the display element).
Regarding claim 11, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 4.
Regarding claim 12, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 5.
4. Claims 6, 13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma et al., US 11,561,405 in view of Sharma et al., US 2021/0271317 (hereinafter Sharma ‘317), in further view of Idris et al., CA 3045192, and in further view of Wilson et al., US 2017/0262703.
Regarding claim 6, Sharma in view of Sharma ‘317 in view of Idris teaches the virtual image display device according to claim 2.
The combination is silent with respect to the virtual image generation optical system includes at least one of a convex lens or a Fresnel lens.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Wilson teaches the virtual image generation optical system includes at least one of a convex lens or a Fresnel lens (See [0006]-[0007]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Sharma, Sharma ‘317, and Idris to have incorporated the teachings of Wilson for the mere benefit of providing scalability with different types of components and applications.
Regarding claim 13, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 6.
Regarding claim 18, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 6.
5. Claims 7, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma et al., US 11,561,405 in view of Sharma et al., US 2021/0271317 (hereinafter Sharma ‘317), in further view of Idris et al., CA 3045192, and in further view of Yun et al., US 2017/0068029.
Regarding claim 7, Sharma in view of Sharma ‘317 in view of Idris teaches of the virtual image display device according to claim 2, wherein the virtual image generation optical system includes a folded optical system (See col.6 to col.9 which discloses of a folding mirror) including a reflective polarizer (See col.4 lines 26-60; col.7 lines 1-13).
The combination is silent with respect to including a half mirror.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Yun teaches of including a half mirror (See [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Sharma, Sharma ‘317, and Idris to have incorporated the teachings of Yun for the mere benefit of providing scalability with different types of components and applications.
Regarding claim 14, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 7.
Regarding claim 19, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 7.
6. Claims 8-10, 15-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma et al., US 11,561,405 in view of Sharma et al., US 2021/0271317 (hereinafter Sharma ‘317), in further view of Idris et al., CA 3045192 and in further view of Ogata, US 2024/0134190.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Sharma, Sharma ‘317, and Idris teaches the virtual image display device according to claim 2.
The combination is silent with respect to including a light guide plate wherein the virtual image generation optical system includes a light guide plate including a light incidence portion and a light emission portion.
However, in the same field od endeavor, Ogata teaches of including a light guide plate wherein the virtual image generation optical system includes a light guide plate including a light incidence portion and a light emission portion (See [0004]-[0023], [0094], [0110]-[0118], [0153]-[0171], and [0185]-[0190]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Sharma, Sharma ‘317, and Idris to have incorporated the teachings of Ogata for the mere benefit of being able to reflect incident light in a desired manner according to the particular application.
Regarding claim 9, the combination teaches the virtual image display device according to claim 8, wherein at least one of the light incidence portion or the light emission portion includes a diffraction element (See Sharma, col.3 lines 35-54; col.4 lines 26-60; col.7 lines 34-41; Ogata, [0004]-[0023], [0094], [0110]-[0118], [0153]-[0171], and [0185]-[0190]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination teaches the virtual image display device according to claim 9, wherein the diffraction element is a liquid crystal diffraction element (See analysis of claim 9; Ogata, [0081], [0126], [0158], [0160] liquid crystal arranged on the path to the diffraction grating).
Regarding claim 15, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 8.
Regarding claim 16, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 9.
Regarding claim 17, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 10.
Regarding claim 20, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 8.
Conclusion
7. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Contact
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ricky Chin whose telephone number is 571-270-3753. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-6:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached on 571-272-3982. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-872-9306.
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).
/Ricky Chin/
Primary Examiner
AU 2424
(571) 270-3753
Ricky.Chin@uspto.gov