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 .
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 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.
Disposition of the Claims
Claims 1-15 are pending.
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.
Claims 1-4, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schowengerdt (US 20150248012 A1).
Regarding claim 1 and 2, Schowengerdt teaches a light source device (Fig. 6A, ¶61, a scanning fiber display 140 that scans light back and forth in an angular arc projected toward a single eye 58 viz. toward a same retina) comprising at least a projection optical system (144) configured to branch light (back and forth by the scanning, ¶61) emitted from a light source unit (display 140) into light in a plurality of directions (back and forth at an angle by the scanning, ¶61) and emit the light (shown by the rays exiting toward the eye), wherein the projection optical system emits the light in the plurality of directions toward an eyepiece optical unit (139) configured to receive light emitted from the projection optical system and emit the light to a retina of a user (see Figs. 5, 6A; ¶51, ¶58, ¶64 discuss retinal projection).
PNG
media_image1.png
596
612
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3 and 4, Schowengerdt teaches the light source device according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the projection optical system has: a light branching unit (the scanning fiber aspect of the display 140) configured to branch light emitted from the light source unit (the display aspect of the display 140) into light in a plurality of directions (¶61, Fig. 6A); and a light reflecting unit (124, having partially reflective/transmissive mirrors 124, 126, 128, 130, 132, 134; see ¶62, “The reflective surfaces (126, 128, 130, 132, 134, 136) may comprise … half silvered mirrors”) configured to reflect light in at least one direction among the light in the plurality of directions branched by the light branching unit (Fig. 6A).
Regarding claim 8, Schowengerdt teaches the light source device according to claim 3, and further discloses wherein the light reflecting unit has an angular characteristic (each of 126 … 136 at an angle to the branching unit, i.e. the scanning fiber of 140) in which image light reflected by the light reflecting unit is not emitted to the light branching unit (Figs. 5 and 6A showing the light deflected solely toward the eye based on said angle; see also ¶54, angle selective coatings for the light reflecting unit in Figs. 5, ¶60, ¶62, express compatibility of the arrayed optical configurations of Figs. 5 with Fig. 6A).
Regarding claim 10, Schowengerdt teaches an image display device comprising: the light source device according to claim 1; and further discloses an eyepiece optical unit (139) configured to receive light emitted from the light source device and emit the light to a retina of a user (Fig. 6A).
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 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.
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.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schowengerdt as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 5, Schowengerdt teaches the light source device according to claim 1, but does not explicitly show wherein the projection optical system has a prism.
However, Schowengerdt explicitly shows that the scanning projection optical system may be configured as a prism without total internal reflection (¶229, Fig. 20F).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that only a straightforward modification already known to Schowengerdt would be required in order to configure the scanning fiber display of Figure 6A with a prism such that the scanning projection would be entirely predictable, e.g. for the purpose of utilizing conventional and inexpensive components to achieve the same effect.
Regarding claim 6 and 7, Schowengerdt teaches the light source device according to claim 1, and explicitly shows a plurality of light reflecting units (124, 126, 128, 130, 132, 134), but does not explicitly show wherein the projection optical system has a plurality of light branching units.
However, Schowengerdt explicitly shows that the scanning projection optical system may be configured with a plurality of light branching units (¶243, “If a set of angularly and laterally diverse beamlets is injected into a waveguide ( … may utilize a plurality of fiber scanners coming from different angles …), a number of exiting beamlets can be created at different exit angles and exit locations”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that only a straightforward modification already known to Schowengerdt would be required in order to configure the scanning fiber display of Figure 6A with a plurality of light branching units to illuminate the plurality of light reflecting units, e.g. for the purpose of scanning multiple fields of view for the purpose of expanding the viewable area.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schowengerdt as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ohkawa (WO 2018190007 A1, of record).
Regarding claim 9, Schowengerdt teaches the light source device according to claim 1, but does not explicitly show wherein the projection optical system further has an optical path length correction unit configured to correct an optical path length.
Ohkawa explicitly shows an analogous near eye display (Fig. 11) wherein the projection optical system further has an optical path length correction unit (30) configured to correct an optical path length (“The optical path length correction member 30 with a sufficient thickness reduces the optical path length difference of the beam with respect to the pupil of each pixel.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teachings of Ohkawa to correct deviations in optical path between the distinct beams of Schowengerdt for the purpose of preventing optical aberration of image formation to the eye.
Claim 11 and 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schowengerdt as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takegawa (JP 10301055 A, of record).
Regarding claim 11 and 12, Schowengerdt teaches the image display device according to claim 10, Schowengerdt explicitly shows wherein the eyepiece optical unit has a diffractive optical element lens (¶62, “The lenses (138, 139) shown are refractive lenses, but diffractive lens elements may also be utilized”, diffractive lens elements being considered as holographic optical element lenses, well known to be a recorded hologram of a lens’ refractive effect).
Schowengerdt does not explicitly show the diffractive optical element lens is a holographic optical element lens, or wherein the light source device is disposed in a direction inclined with respect to a normal direction of a surface of the holographic optical element lens.
Takegawa explicitly shows an analogous image display device (Figs. 6, 9, 12) having a holographic optical element lens (27) wherein the light source device (26, 54, 103) is disposed in a direction inclined with respect to a normal direction of a surface of the holographic optical element lens (27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have followed the teachings of Takegawa and configured the light source device at non-normal angle with respect to the holographic lens element of the modified Schowengerdt for the purpose of reducing the size and form factor, improving cost of manufacture and comfort of the user.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schowengerdt as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Watanabe (US 20160320619 A1).
Regarding claim 13-15, Schowengerdt teaches the image display device according to claim 10, but does not explicitly show wherein the projection optical system further has a distortion correction unit configured to correct distortion of an image using a curved mirror or free-form surface lens.
Watanabe explicitly shows an analogous image display device (Fig. 1) having a projection optical system (Fig. 2) comprising distortion correction unit (L13, L32, M13) configured to correct distortion of an image (¶105) using a curved mirror (M13) and a free-form surface lens (L13, L32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the distortion correcting geometries of Watanabe to implement distortion correction in the device of Schowengerdt thus improving quality of the image for viewing by the user.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLLIN X BEATTY whose telephone number is (571)270-1255. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 10am - 6pm.
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, Thomas Pham can be reached on 5712723689. 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.
/COLLIN X BEATTY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872