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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
The amendment filed 06/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the independent claim have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the first surface faces the light source assembly". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes “the first surface faces the light source assembly” will be read as “a first surface faces the light source assembly”.
The above 112 rejected claims will be interpreted as best understood, in light of the specification, unless otherwise stated.
Claims 4-7 and 11-20 are dependent on claim 2 and therefore rejected for at least the same reasons.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chi et al. (US 2021/0055555, of record) in view of Yang et al. (US 2023/0204959, of record) in view of Bohn (US 2013/0163089, of record) in view of Price et al. (US 2020/0285307).
Regarding claim 1, Chi discloses an optical system (Figures 1-5), comprising:
a light source assembly ([0107] discloses: 512, image source; [0079] discloses: 126, locators; [0083] discloses: emitted light from 130, eye tracking unit; Examiner notes that 512, image source, 126, locator and the emitted light from 130, eye tracker is considered the light source assembly) comprising a first light source used for generating first light ([0107] discloses: 512, image source, may include a plurality of light sources, corresponding to e.g., red, green, or blue) and a second light source configured to generate second light ([0079] discloses: 126, locators, emit light in the infrared band; [0083] discloses: 130, eye tracking unit, contains a light source in the infrared spectrum; Examiner notes that IR light is considered to be the second light);
a sensing element ([0074] discloses: 130, eye tracking unit) used for sensing third light from the second light reflected by an eye ([0083] discloses: 103, eye tracking unit, includes a camera capturing the light reflected by the users eye; including light from infrared spectrum); and
a light guiding element ([0107] discloses: 520, substrate) used for guiding the first light (Figure 5 depicts: 520, substrate, transporting light from 512, image source; that is considered to be the source of the first light), wherein wavelengths of the first light and the second light are different (in at least abstract discloses: VBG, configured to diffract display light of a first wavelength; [0014] discloses: VBG, configured to diffract visible light of the first wavelength; Examiner notes that the RGB light sources, generated by 512, image source, are considered to be visible and diffracted by the VBG, and constitutes the first wavelength);
a first optical assembly disposed on a first surface of the light guiding element ([0108] discloses: 530, input coupler; right hand side of 520, substrate is considered the first surface, see Figure 5), a third optical assembly disposed on the first surface of the light guiding element ([0109] discloses: 540, output coupler, see Figure 5).
Chi fails to disclose an optical system where the light guiding element transporting the second light and the third light and comprising a waveguide used for simultaneously guiding the first, the second and the third light within the light guiding element; a first optical assembly disposed between the first light source and the light guiding element; and a third optical assembly disposed between the second light source and the light guiding element. Chi and Yang are related because both disclose optical system.
Yang teaches an optical system where the light guiding element transporting the second light and the third light ([0027] discloses: grating that diffracts and transmits on a particular wavelength and simply passes other wavelengths without diffraction).
Bohn teaches an optical system comprising a waveguide used for simultaneously guiding the first, the second and the third light within the light guiding element ([0018] teaches: waveguide, conducts visible light, [0033] teaches: waveguide, can be utilized for infrared illumination and for eyeball reflections; a first second and third light respectively; Bohn discloses that the waveguide conducts visible light and is also utilized for infrared illumination and detecting eyeball reflections, thereby indicating that multiple light signals of different wavelengths are present within and propagate through the same waveguide during operation; Examiner notes that the functions: display, illumination and sensing, are considered to be performed within and by the same optical system, it is understood that the systems run concurrently during standard operation).
Price teaches an optical system with a first optical assembly disposed between the first light source and the light guiding element (Figure 4A depicts; 435, RGB laser device generating 440, RGB laser light, which passes through 445, collimating optic; and Figure 4B depicts: 455, DMA, directing the resulting combined light toward 465, waveguide; Examiner notes that 445, collimating optic is considered the first optical assembly, 435, RGB laser device is considered the first light source and, 465, waveguide is considered the light guiding element; Figures 4A-4B depict: 445 disposed between 435 and 455); and a third optical assembly disposed between the second light source and the light guiding element (Figure 4A depicts: 410, IR illumination device, generating 415, IR light, which is redirected by 420, tuning optic toward, 425, collimating optic and exits as 430, collimated IR light; Figure 4B depicts: 455, DMA, combining the collimated IR light and directing the combined light toward 465, waveguide; Examiner notes that 425, collimating optic, optically together with 420, tuning optic is considered the third optical assembly, 410, IR illuminations deice is considered the second light source and 465, is considered the light guiding part; Figures 4A-4B depict: 420 between 410 and 465).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Chi to incorporate the teachings of Yang Bohn and Price and provide an optical system where the light guiding element transporting the second light and the third light and comprising a waveguide used for simultaneously guiding the first, the second and the third light within the light guiding element; a first optical assembly disposed between the first light source and the light guiding element; and a third optical assembly disposed between the second light source and the light guiding element. Doing so would allow to handle display light, illumination light and sensing light within a single light guiding element, thereby improving the overall optical integration and reducing system complexity.
Claims 2, and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chi et al. (US 2021/0055555, of record) in view of Yang et al. (US 2023/0204959, of record) in view of Bohn (US 2013/0163089, of record) in view of Price et al. (US 2020/0285307), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Meitav et al. (2021/0294106, of record).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, the modified Chi discloses the optical system as claimed in claim 1, wherein:
A first surface faces the light source assembly (Figure 5 depicts: first surface, facing 512, image source); and
the wavelength of the first light (Examiner notes that the wavelength of the first light is considered to be the visible light spectrum) is less than the wavelength of the second light (Examiner notes that the wavelength of the second light is considered to be the infrared light spectrum; therefore the first light wavelength, visible, is less than the wavelength of the second light, infrared).
Chi fails to disclose an optical system wherein the first surface faces the eye. Chi and Meitav are related because both disclose optical systems.
Meitav teaches an optical system wherein
the first surface faces the eye ([0131] teaches: imaging device may be disposed on the same side of the waveguide as the light source and eye).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Chi to incorporate the teachings of Meitav and provide an optical system wherein the first surface faces the eye. Doing so would allow for a more compact system, thereby improving the overall optical integration and reducing system complexity.
Regarding claim 4, the modified Chi discloses the optical system as claimed in claim 2, wherein: the light guiding element ([0107] discloses: 520, substrate) further comprises a first side (from top to bottom of Fig. 5, bottom side of 520, substrate, is considered the first side of the light guiding element); the first surface (from left to right side of Figure 5, the right most side of 520, substrate where 530, input coupler, 540, output coupler is considered the first surface of the light guiding element) is adjacent to the first side (Figure 5 depicts: first surface adjacent to first side); the sensing element ([0074] discloses: 130, eye tracking unit); and
the first surface and the first side are not parallel (Figure 5 depicts: first surface and first side at approximately orthogonal; therefore considered to be not parallel).
Chi fails to explicitly disclose a sensing element disposed on the first side of the light guiding element as claimed. However, Chi discloses a sensing element (130, eye tracking unit) integrated with the optical system, thereby teaching the use of such a sensing element in conjunction with the light guiding element. Choosing a specific placement or orientation of optical components is a matter of design choice within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), (holding that selecting a particular placement of component from known alternatives is an obvious matter of design choice where the function is unaffected) and In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955) (holding that rearranging parts where the operation remains the same does not render the claimed invention obvious).
Accordingly, it would been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to position the sensing element on the first side of the light guiding element, since the claimed placement represents a selection among a finite number known locations on the light guiding element that are functionally equivalent with respect to the operation of the sensing element. The sensing element performs the same function (e.g., detecting eye position) regardless of whether it is disposed on the first side or another side of the light guiding element, and the particular placement would have been determined based on routine design considerations such as packaging restraints, spatial layout and system integration within the optical device. Because the sensing element performs the same function regardless of its placement on the light guiding element the claimed placement does not change the operation of the system and merely reflects a predicable variation among known alternatives, the selection of a the first side represents a routine design choice within the skill of the art. Therefore, the claimed use of an optical system with a sensing element disposed on the first side of the light guiding element represents a routine variation within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 5, the modified Chi discloses the optical system as claimed in claim 2, wherein the light source assembly comprises a plurality of light source units ([0107] discloses: 512, image source; [0079] discloses: 126, locators; [0083] discloses: emitted light from 130, eye tracking unit; Examiner notes that 512, image source, 126, locator and the emitted light from 130, eye tracker is considered the light source assembly), each of the light source units comprises a first light-emitting unit, a second light-emitting unit, a third light-emitting unit ([0107] discloses: 512, image source, may include a plurality of light sources, corresponding to e.g., red, green, or blue; Examiner notes that he red, green and blue are considered to be separate light-emitting units), and a fourth light-emitting unit ([0083] discloses: 130, eye tracking unit, contains a light source in the infrared spectrum), wherein:
lights of the first light-emitting unit, the second light-emitting unit, the third light-emitting unit, and the fourth light-emitting unit have different wavelengths (Examiner notes that red, green, blue, and IR are all considered different wavelengths).
Chi fails to disclose a device wherein the fourth light-emitting unit is disposed between the first light-emitting unit and the second light-emitting unit; the third light-emitting unit is strip-shaped; the third light-emitting unit extends in an axis parallel to an axis that the first light-emitting unit and the second light-emitting unit are arranged. However, selecting a particular arrangement of light emitting units within a light source assembly is a matter of design choice within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), (holding that selecting a particular placement of component from known alternatives is an obvious matter of design choice where the function is unaffected) and In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955) (holding that rearranging parts where the operation remains the same does not render the claimed invention obvious).
Accordingly it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the light emitting units such that the fourth light emitting unit is disposed between the first and second light emitting units and the third light emitting unit is strip shaped and extends parallel to the first and second emitting units, since the claimed arrangement represents a selection among a finite number of known configurations of light emitting units within a light source assembly that are functionally equivalent with respect to light emission and system operation. The light emitting units perform the same function (e.g., emitting light of respective wavelengths) regardless of their relative arrangement, and the particular configuration would have been determined based on routine design considerations such as packaging constraints, spatial layout, emission pattern integration and system compactness within the light source assembly.
Because the light emitting units perform the same function regardless of their relative positioning, the claimed arrangement does not change the operation of the system and merely reflects a predictable variation among known alternatives, and the selection of the claimed configuration represents a routine design choice within the skill of the art. Therefor the claimed use of a device wherein the fourth light-emitting unit is disposed between the first light-emitting unit and the second light-emitting unit; the third light-emitting unit is strip-shaped; the third light-emitting unit extends in an axis parallel to an axis that the first light-emitting unit and the second light-emitting unit are arranged represents a routine variation within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 6, the modified Chi discloses the optical system as claimed in claim 5.
Chi fails to disclose a device wherein: the third light-emitting unit extends in the axis parallel to an axis that the first light-emitting unit and the fourth light-emitting unit are arranged. However, selecting a particular arrangement of light emitting units within a light source assembly is a matter of design choice within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), (holding that selecting a particular placement of components from known alternatives is an obvious matter of design choice where the function is unaffected) and In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955) (holding that rearranging parts where the operation remains the same does not render the claimed invention obvious).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the light emitting units such that the third light emitting unit extends along an axis parallel to an axis of the first light emitting unit and the fourth light emitting unit, since the claimed arrangement represents a selection among a finite number of known configurations of light emitting units within a light source assembly that are functionally equivalent with respect to light emission and system operation. The light emitting units perform the same function (e.g., emitting light of respective wavelengths) regardless of whether their axes are arranged in parallel or in another orientation, and the particular configuration would have been determined based on routine design considerations such as packaging constraints, spatial layout, emission pattern integration and system compactness within the light source assembly.
Because the light emitting units perform the same function regardless of their relative orientation, the claimed parallel arrangement does not change the operation of the system and merely reflects a predictable variation among known alternatives, the selection of a parallel configuration represents a routine variation within the skill of the art. Therefore, the claimed use of a device wherein: the third light-emitting unit extends in the axis parallel to an axis that the first light-emitting unit and the fourth light-emitting unit are arranged represents a routine variation within the skill of the art.
Chi fails to disclose a device an area of the third light-emitting unit is greater than an area of the first light-emitting unit; the area of the third light-emitting unit is greater than an area of the second light-emitting unit; and the area of the third light-emitting unit is greater than an area of the fourth light-emitting unit. Chi and Lee are related because both disclose optical systems.
Lee teaches a device an area of the third light-emitting unit is greater than an area of the first light-emitting unit;
the area of the third light-emitting unit is greater than an area of the second light-emitting unit; and
the area of the third light-emitting unit is greater than an area of the fourth light-emitting unit ([0091] teaches: the positions and sizes of the areas occupied by the light emitting elements may be variously modified according to resolution or the like in other embodiments).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Chi to incorporate the teachings of Lee and provide a device an area of the third light-emitting unit is greater than an area of the first light-emitting unit; the area of the third light-emitting unit is greater than an area of the second light-emitting unit; the area of the third light-emitting unit is greater than an area of the fourth light-emitting unit. Doing so would allow for providing broader illuminations coverage while maintaining a compact design, improving the overall uniformity and integration efficiency of the optical system.
Claims 7 11, 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chi et al. (US 2021/0055555, of record) in view of Yang et al. (US 2023/0204959, of record) in view of Bohn (US 2013/0163089, of record) in view of Price et al. (US 2020/0285307), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Meitav et al. (2021/0294106, of record), as applied to claim 6 and 2 above, in view of Amirsolaimani et al. (2022/0050286, of record).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Chi discloses the optical system as claimed in claim 6, wherein:
the first surface (from left to right side of Figure 5, the right most side of 520, substrate where 530, input coupler, 540, output coupler is considered the first surface of the light guiding element) faces the sensing element ([0074] discloses: 130, eye tracking unit); and
the sensing element is disposed in the light source assembly ([0107] discloses: 512, image source; [0079] discloses: 126, locators; [0083] discloses: emitted light from 130, eye tracking unit; Examiner notes that 512, image source, 126, locator and the emitted light from 130, eye tracker is considered the light source assembly).
Chi fails to disclose an optical system wherein the first surface faces the sensing element. Chi and Amirsolaimani are related because both disclose optical systems.
Amirsolaimani teaches an optical system wherein the first surface faces the sensing element ([0064] teaches: 602, PIC; [0051] teaches: 210, first reflector; Figure 6C depicts: 602, PIC, facing 210, first reflector).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Chi to incorporate the teachings of Amirsolaimani and provide an optical system wherein the first surface faces the sensing element. Doing so would allow for providing broader illuminations coverage while maintaining a compact design, improving the overall uniformity and integration efficiency of the optical system.
Regarding claim 11, the modified Chi discloses the optical system as claimed in claim 2.
Chi fails to disclose an optical system further comprising a second optical assembly disposed on the first surface, wherein: the first light, the second light, and the third light pass through the second optical assembly; the second light passes through the third optical assembly. Chi and Amirsolaimani are related because both disclose optical systems.
Amirsolaimani teaches an optical system further comprising a second optical assembly disposed on the first surface, wherein:
the first light, the second light, and the third light pass through the second optical assembly; and
the second light passes through the third optical assembly ([0071] discloses: 875R, 875B, 875G, resonators, is configured to be in-couple the light; Each considered to be an optical assembly that light passes through; positioned on the tip of the waveguide; Examiner notes that this is considered to be all three assemblies disposed on the first surface and the first second and third light passing through all the of the optical in-coupling).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Chi to incorporate the teachings of Amirsolaimani and provide an optical system further comprising a second optical assembly disposed on the first surface, wherein: the first light, the second light, and the third light pass through the second optical assembly; the second light passes through the third optical assembly. Doing so would allow for providing broader illuminations coverage while maintaining a compact design, improving the overall uniformity and integration efficiency of the optical system.
Regarding claim 13, the modified Chi discloses the optical system as claimed in claim 11, wherein: the first light source and the second light source are disposed on opposite sides of a virtual plane (Price: Figure 4A depicts: 435, RGB laser device, and 410, IR illumination device, positioned at different locations relative to 455, display module assembly; Examiner notes that the virtual plane extends between 435, RGB device, and 410, IR illumination device, placing the first light source and the second light source on opposite sides thereof; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 1, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged); and the first optical assembly and the third optical assembly are separated from each other ([0108] discloses: 530, input coupler, disposed on 520, substrate; [0109] discloses: 540, output coupler, disposed at different locations on 520, substrate).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Chi discloses the optical system as claimed in claim 13, wherein: the second optical assembly and the third optical assembly are separated from each other (Amirsolaimani: Figure 8B depicts: all three optical assemblies are separate from each other); and the second optical assembly is disposed between the first optical assembly and the third optical assembly (Figure 8B depicts: 875G between 875R and 875B; wherein 875G is considered analogous to the second optical assembly; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 11, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8-10 are allowed.
Claims 15-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 15, the prior art fails to teach or suggest “wherein: the third light passes through the third optical assembly and the sensing element is disposed in the second light source” along with the structural limitations positively recited in claims 14, 13, 11, 2 and 1 in a manner that would support a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or § 103, based on the prior art of record and the search requirements of MPEP § 904.
Claims 16 is dependent on claim 15 and therefore allowed for at least the same reasons.
Regarding claim 17, the prior art fails to teach or suggest “wherein: the sensing element and the first light source are disposed on an identical side of the virtual plane; and the sensing element and the first optical assembly are disposed on an identical side of the virtual plane” along with the structural limitations positively recited in claims 14, 13, 11, 2 and 1 in a manner that would support a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or § 103, based on the prior art of record and the search requirements of MPEP § 904.
Claims 18 is dependent on claim 17 and therefore allowed for at least the same reasons.
Regarding claim 19, the prior art fails to teach or suggest “wherein: the sensing element and the first light source are disposed on opposite sides of the virtual plane; and the sensing element and the first optical assembly are disposed on opposite sides of the virtual plane” along with the structural limitations positively recited in claims 14, 13, 11, 2 and 1 in a manner that would support a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or § 103, based on the prior art of record and the search requirements of MPEP § 904.
Claims 20 is dependent on claim 19 and therefore allowed for at least the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Sipes whose telephone number is (703)756-1372. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 4:30-9:30/12:30-7:30 (CT).
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571) 272-2713. 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.
/J.C.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights