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 § 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(s) 20-25, 27, 28, 30-34, and 38-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bell et al. (US Pub. 20180188536, Bell) in view of Joten et al. (US Pub. 20060050216, Joten).
As per claim 20, Bell teaches (in figures 2, 3, 5, and 10-12) a wearable display system (100), comprising: an eyepiece stack (106) comprising: a tunable attenuator (140) arranged on a world side (side opposite eyes 142) of the of the eyepiece stack, the tunable attenuator comprising a single electro-optic cell (150) arranged between pair of linear polarizers (146 and 148), the single electro-optic cell comprising a single layer of liquid crystal material (162); a first polarizer (146) of the pair of linear polarizers, a camera module (110); and an electronic processing module (108) in communication with the tunable attenuator and the camera module, the electronic processing module being programmed to determine information about an angle of incidence of light from an ambient light source (154) based on images captured by the camera module and to vary the attenuation of the tunable attenuator based on the angle of incidence (see paragraph 62 and paragraphs 55-57) wherein the tunable attenuator attenuates incident light such that all light having a wavelength in a wavelength range from greater than 460 nm to 630 nm transmitted through the tunable attenuator has a transmission of greater than 10% compared to a transmission of normally incident light for angles of incidence of less than 50 degrees (when the LC cell is fully transparent see paragraphs 64 and 47).
Bell does not teach at least one layer of birefringent material arranged between the single electro-optic cell and a first polarizer of the pair of linear polarizers.
However, Joten teaches (in figures 2-5 and 14-15) a liquid crystal shutter using two linear polarizers (51 and 61) with crossed transmission axes, two quarter wave films (52 and 62), and horizontally aligned liquid crystal for a liquid crystal shutter wherein the liquid crystal shutter attenuates incident light such that all light having a wavelength in a wavelength range from greater than 460 nm to 630 nm transmitted through the tunable attenuator has a transmission of greater than 10% compared to a transmission of normally incident light for angles of incidence of less than 50 degrees (see figures 12-15 and additionally figures 7-10 to show that even in the worst case a transmittance of greater that 10% for light incident at angles of less than 50 degrees) in order to provide improved viewing angle characteristics (paragraph 99).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to replace the liquid crystal layer and polarizers in Bell with a horizontally aligned liquid crystal layer, linear polarizers, and quarter wave films as suggested by Joten in order to provide a liquid crystal shutter with improved viewing angle characteristics.
Regarding the functional limitation “wherein the tunable attenuator attenuates incident light such that all light having a wavelength in a wavelength range from greater than 460 nm to 630 nm transmitted through the tunable attenuator has a transmission of greater than 10% compared to a transmission of normally incident light for angles of incidence of less than 50 degrees” since the structure of the device of Bell in view of Joten is identical to the claimed structure, the device of Bell in view of Joten is considered to be as capable of performing the function as the claimed invention, absent any claimed structural difference. See MPEP § 2114 I & II, "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... 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.” in the instant case, the shutter of Bell in view of Joten is controllable to have variable transmission and therefore capable of performing the recited function.
As per claim 21, Bell in view of Joten teaches that all light having the wavelength in the wavelength range transmitted through the tunable attenuator has a transmission of less than 10% compared to the transmission of normally incident light for angles of incidence greater than 70 degrees (when the LC cell is fully opaque state compared to when the LC cell is in a fully transparent state see paragraphs 64 and 47 of Bell).
Regarding the functional limitation “all light having the wavelength in the wavelength range transmitted through the tunable attenuator has a transmission of less than 10% compared to the transmission of normally incident light for angles of incidence greater than 70 degrees” since the structure of the device of Bell in view of Joten is identical to the claimed structure, the device of Bell in view of Joten is considered to be as capable of performing the function as the claimed invention, absent any claimed structural difference. See MPEP § 2114 I & II, "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... 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.” in the instant case, the shutter of Bell in view of Joten is controllable to have variable transmission and therefore capable of performing the recited function.
As per claim 22, Bell teaches (in figures 2, 3, 5, and 10-12) a frame (102) housing the eyepiece stack (106), and wherein the camera module (110) is mounted to the frame.
As per claim 23, Bell teaches (in figures 2, 3, 5, and 10-12) that during use a user positioned on a user side of the eyepiece stack views displayed images delivered by the wearable display system via the eyepiece stack which augment the user's field of view of the user's environment (paragraph 22).
As per claim 24, Bell teaches (in figures 2, 3, 5, and 10-12) that the electronic processing module is programmed to vary the attenuation of the tunable attenuator by controlling an optical state of the single electro-optic cell to reduce transmission of visible light incident on the tunable attenuator by an amount dependent on the angle of incidence within a first range of incident angles (see paragraphs 55-57 and 62 which describe the control electronics 108 and/or processing unit 4 processor determining the size and relative angle of the light source 154 with respect to the user’s eye 142 and the attenuator 140 and attenuating the areas of the attenuator though which light travels en route to the user’s eye which is dependent on the angle of incidence since the area through which the light will travel will vary depending on the angle of incidence of the light source).
As per claim 25, Bell teaches (in figures 2, 3, 5, and 10-12) that the tunable attenuator further comprises a voltage source (168) arranged to apply a variable voltage to the layer of the liquid crystal material.
As per claim 27, Bell in view of Joten teaches that the at least one layer of the birefringent material (52 and 62 from Joten) comprises a pair of quarter wave plates, the quarter wave plates being disposed on opposite sides of the layer of liquid crystal material of the single electro-optic cell.
As per claim 28, Bell in view of Joten teaches that each of the pair of quarter wave plates of the single electro-optic cell is arranged relative to a corresponding one of the linear polarizers to form a circular polarizer (see figure 2 and paragraph 54 in Joten).
As per claim 30, Bell in view of Joten teaches that respective pass axes (axis perpendicular to absorption axes 51T and 61T in Joten) of the pair of linear polarizers are crossed (see figure 3 and paragraph 59 in Joten)
As per claim 31, Bell in view of Joten teaches that the single electro-optic cell rotates a polarization state of light transmitted by a first linear polarizer (61 from Joten) of the pair of linear polarizers on the world side of the tunable attenuator (see paragraph 77 of Joten).
As per claim 32, Bell in view of Joten teaches that an amount of rotation of the polarization state varies depending on a state of the single electro-optic cell and an angle of incidence of light transmitted by the first linear polarizer of the pair of linear polarizers (see paragraph 45-57 and 64 in Bell and paragraphs 77-77 of Joten).
Regarding the functional limitation “amount of rotation of the polarization state varies depending on a state of the electro-optic cell and an angle of incidence of light transmitted by the first linear polarizer of the pair of linear polarizers” since the structure of the device of Bell in view of Joten is identical to the claimed structure, the device of Bell in view of Joten is considered to be as capable of performing the function as the claimed invention, absent any claimed structural difference. See MPEP § 2114 I & II, in the instant case, the tunable attenuator comprises a liquid crystal cell capable of blocking light at different levels and therefore capable of performing the recited function.
As per claim 33, Bell in view of Joten teaches that the light transmitted having large angles of incidence is rotated less than the light transmitted having small angles of incidence (when light source is at a large angle see figure 10 and paragraphs 45 and 64 in Bell).
As per claim 34, Bell teaches all the limitations of claim 20 above.
Bell does not teach that the tunable attenuator has an area greater than 50 mm x 50 mm.
However, the size of the tunable attenuator is a result effective variable in that if the attenuator is too small it will fail to properly shield light to the user and if it is too large the device will become too cumbersome to be worn by the user.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to set the area of the tunable attenuator to be greater than 50 mm x 50 mm, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (See MPEP § 2144.05 (II) (A) and (B))
As per claim 38, Bell teaches (in figures 2, 3, 5, and 10-12) a method for displaying an image using a wearable display system, comprising: directing display light from a display towards a user through an eyepiece (106) to project images in the user's field of view (paragraph 22); determining a relative location between an ambient light source and the eyepiece; and adjusting an attenuation of ambient light from the ambient light source through the eyepiece such that all light having a wavelength in a wavelength range from 460 nm to 630 nm transmitted through the eye piece has a transmission of greater than 10% compared to a transmission of normally incident light for angles of incidence of less than 50 degrees (when the LC cell is fully transparent see paragraphs 64 and 47), and depending on the relative location between the ambient light source and the eyepiece (paragraphs 55-57), wherein the adjusting comprises, in order: linearly polarizing the ambient light to provide linearly polarized light (at first polarizer 146), retarding by a single layer of liquid crystal material (150) the linearly polarized light by a first amount to provide once retarded polarized light (retarded by LC layer 162), polarizing the once retarded polarized light to provide twice polarized light (at polarizer 148).
Bell does not teach circularly polarizing the linearly polarized light to provide circularly polarized light, retarding, by a single layer of liquid crystal material, the circularly polarized light by a first amount to provide once retarded polarized light.
However, Joten teaches (in figures 2-5 and 14-15) forming a liquid crystal shutter using two linear polarizers (51 and 61) with crossed transmission axes, two quarter wave films (52 and 62), and horizontally aligned liquid crystal for a liquid crystal shutter wherein the liquid crystal shutter attenuates incident light such that all light having a wavelength in a wavelength range from greater than 460 nm to 630 nm transmitted through the tunable attenuator has a transmission of greater than 10% compared to a transmission of normally incident light for angles of incidence of less than 50 degrees (see figures 12-15 and additionally figures 7-10 to show that even in the worst case a transmittance of greater that 10% for light incident at angles of less than 50 degrees) in order to provide improved viewing angle characteristics (paragraph 99).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to replace the liquid crystal layer and polarizers in Bell with a horizontally aligned liquid crystal layer, linear polarizers, and quarter wave films as suggested by Joten in order to provide a liquid crystal shutter with improved viewing angle characteristics.
As per claim 39, Bell in view of Joten teaches that all light having the wavelength in the wavelength range transmitted through the eyepiece tunable attenuator has a transmission of less than 10 % compared to the transmission of normally incident light for angles of incidence greater than 70 degrees (when the LC cell is fully opaque state compared to when the LC cell is in a fully transparent state see paragraphs 64 and 47 in Bell).
Claim(s) 29 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bell et al. (US Pub. 20180188536, Bell) and Joten et al. (US Pub. 20060050216, Joten) as applied to claim 28 above and in further view of Sharp et al. (US pub. 20200116912, Sharp).
As per claim 29, Bell in view of Joten does not teach that the at least one layer of birefringent material further comprises a C-plate.
However, Sharp teaches (in figure 9) proving pairs of positive C plates and positive A plates between polarizers and quarter wave films in order to correct for geometric rotation issues (paragraph 56).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include the positive C plates and the positive A plates as suggested by Sharp.
The motivation would have been to correct for geometric rotation issues.
Claim(s) 35-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bell et al. (US Pub. 20180188536, Bell) in view of Joten et al. (US Pub. 20060050216, Joten) as applied to claim as applied to claim 20 above and in further view of Hirata et al. (US Pub. 20090051707, Hirata).
As per claim 35, Bell in view of Joten does not teach that the electro-optic cell is a first electro-optic cell and the tunable attenuator further comprises a second electro-optic cell and a third linear polarizer, the second electro-optic cell being arranged between one of the pair of linear polarizers and the third linear polarizer.
However, Hirata teaches (in figures 1-4 and 44a-45) forming a tunable attenuator as a stacked liquid crystal arrangement wherein two electro-optic cells (“first panel” and “second panel”) such that a first liquid crystal cell (“first panel”) disposed between a first and second linear polarizer (polarizers A and B) is stacked on a second liquid crystal cell (“second panel”) disposed between a third and fourth linear polarizer (polarizers C and B’) such that the second liquid crystal cell is arranged between second polarizer (Polarizer B) and the third linear polarizer (Polarizer C) in order to improve contrast and shutter performance (paragraph 118).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Bell in view of Joten to be a stacked two panel system by including a second electro-optic cell and a third and fourth polarizer as suggested by Hirata in order to improve contrast and shutter performance.
As per claim 36, Bell in view of Joten and Hirata teaches that the first electro-optic cell and the second electro-optic cell are each composed of a corresponding layer of a liquid crystal material (liquid crystal layer LQ from Joten)
As per claim 37, Bell in view of Joten and Hirata teaches that the tunable attenuator further comprises one or more layers of birefringent materials (52 and 62 from Joten in each of the electro-optic cells) arranged on opposite sides of each of the corresponding layer of liquid crystal material of the first electro-optic cell and the second electro-optic cell.
Claim(s) 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bell et al. (US Pub. 20180188536, Bell) in view of Park et al (US Pub. 20110170040, Park).
Bell teaches (in figures 2, 3, 5, and 10-12) a wearable display system (100), comprising: an eyepiece stack (106) comprising: a tunable attenuator (140) arranged on a world side (side opposite eyes 142) of the of the eyepiece stack, the tunable attenuator comprising a single electro-optic cell (150) arranged between pair of linear polarizers (146 and 148), the single electro-optic cell comprising a single layer of liquid crystal material (162); a first polarizer (146) of the pair of linear polarizers, a camera module (110); and an electronic processing module (108) in communication with the tunable attenuator and the camera module, the electronic processing module being programmed to determine information about an angle of incidence of light from an ambient light source (154) based on images captured by the camera module and to vary the attenuation of the tunable attenuator based on the angle of incidence (see paragraph 62 and paragraphs 55-57) wherein the tunable attenuator attenuates incident light such that all light having a wavelength in a wavelength range from greater than 460 nm to 630 nm transmitted through the tunable attenuator has a transmission of greater than 10% compared to a transmission of normally incident light for angles of incidence of less than 50 degrees (when the LC cell is fully transparent see paragraphs 64 and 47).
Bell does not teach at least one layer of birefringent material arranged between the single electro-optic cell and a first polarizer of the pair of linear polarizers wherein the single layer of the liquid crystal material is a single layer of blue phase liquid crystal material.
However, Park taches (in figure 11) forming an electro-optic cell out of blue phase liquid crystal (150) provided with linear polarizers (410 and 440) on either side of the liquid crystal and quarter wave plates (420 and 430) between polarizers (410 and 440) and the liquid crystal, in order to improve response speed and reduce the driving voltage while preventing back reflection (see paragraphs 49, 59, and 87).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to replace the liquid crystal cell in the electro-optic cell of Bell with a blue-phase liquid crystal cell provided with quarter wave films as suggested by Park in order to improve response speed and reduce the driving voltage while preventing back reflection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/07/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Bell is relied upon for the teaching of a liquid crystal shutter in an augmented display device in order to block out light sources present at different angles to the viewer while Joten is relied upon to teach providing an arrangement for a liquid crystal cell in which viewing angle properties of a liquid crystal shutter are improved by providing quarter wave plates and thereby providing a motivation to combine the references as by adding the quarter wave plates light leakage is suppressed for large angles such as when a light source is present at a large angle to the viewer and the device. As such It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the references as indicated in the rejection above and when taken together the cited references teach every limitation of the claimed invention. Applicant’s argument is therefore unpersuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER P GROSS whose telephone number is (571)272-5660. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm EST.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571) 272-9791. 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.
/ALEXANDER P GROSS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights