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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/09/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-21 are 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 1 recites “the waveguide-based display is configured to allow a user to simultaneously view image containing light and world light.” However, it is unclear how a waveguide-based display can be “configured to allow a user to simultaneously view image containing light and world light.” Specifically, it is unclear what constitutes “image containing light” or “world light” and how the two lights should be different. Moreover, it is unclear what construction is required a allow a user to simultaneously view both. For the purposes of examination, any semi-transparent or transparent waveguide-based display will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claims 2-21 are rejected as being dependent upon claim 1 and failing to cure the deficiencies of the rejected base claim.
Claim 4 recites “the projector can rotate with respect to the smart device.” However, it is unclear what structure is required such that the projector can rotate. It is unclear if the projector should be provided to actually rotate or if any projector would meet the claimed limitation. For the purposes of examination, any projector having a rotating element will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claim 6 recites “the waveguide further comprises a fold grating configured to provide beam expansion to the incoupled light.” However, it is unclear what construction is required for “a fold grating configured to provide beam expansion to the incoupled light.” Specifically, it is unclear if any grating would read on the claimed limitation or if the claim requires some optical power to be provided. For the purposes of examination, any grating that reflects light will be interpreted as reading on the claimed fold grating.
Claims 7 and 8 each recite “the waveguide-based display is housed in a case configured to house and protect the smart device.” However, it is unclear how a case should be constructed such that it is “configured to house and protect the smart device.” Specifically, it is unclear if some specific material/structure should be provided that would “protect the smart device” and it is unclear what structure is required to house the smart device. For the purposes of examination, any case housing the waveguide-based display and the components of the smart device will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claims 9-20 are rejected as being dependent upon claim 8 and failing to cure the deficiencies of the rejected base claim.
Claim 19 recites “the battery is used as an auxiliary battery for the smart device.” However, claim 19 is a device claim and it is unclear what structure of a battery is required such that it is “used as an auxiliary battery for the smart device.” As any battery would be capable of such a use, it is unclear what is required by the claims. For the purposes of examination, any augmented reality device with a battery will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claim 20 recites “the battery is further used to power the projector.” However, claim 20 is a device claim and it is unclear what structure of a battery is required such that it is “further used to power the projector.” As any battery would be capable of such a use, it is unclear what is required by the claims. Moreover, it is unclear how such a battery can be for “further” use when it has not been defined for any primary use. For the purposes of examination, any augmented reality device with a battery will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claim 21 recites “the waveguide-based display comprises a positioner which fixes the distance of a user’s eye from the waveguide-based display when the user is utilizing the waveguide-based display.” However, it is unclear what structure is required as a “positioner” and how such a “positioner” can “fix” the distance. Moreover, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the distance” in the claim as the only distance that has been defined is a fixed distance from the plurality of components to the waveguide-based display. For the purposes of examination, any display provided at a fixed distance from a user’s eye will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
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) 1-3, 5-16, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arneson et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2006/0146013; hereinafter – “Arneson”).
Regarding claim 1, Arneson teaches an augmented reality device comprising:
a smart device (110, 210, 305) including a plurality of components (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraphs 0018, 0024, and 0026); and
a waveguide-based display (105, 205, 315) moveably connected to the smart device (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraphs 0018-0020 and 0025-0028),
wherein the waveguide-based display is configured to allow a user to simultaneously view image containing light and world light (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraphs 0018-0020 and 0025-0028), and
wherein each component of the plurality of components is positioned at a fixed distance from the waveguide-based display (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraphs 0018-0028).
Regarding claim 2, Arneson teaches the augmented reality device of claim 1, as above.
Arneson further teaches that the plurality of components are selected from a group consisting of: one or more cameras; one or more speakers; accelerometer; inertial measurement unit (IMU); one or more microphones; ambient light sensor; depth sensor; memory; processor; and battery (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraphs 0018, 0024, and 0026).
Regarding claim 3, Arneson teaches the augmented reality device of claim 1, as above.
Arneson further teaches a projector (140, 150) optically coupled with the waveguide-based display (See e.g. Fig. 1; Paragraphs 0018-0021).
Regarding claim 5, Arneson teaches the augmented reality device of claim 3, as above.
Arneson further teaches that the waveguide-based display comprises a waveguide comprising: an input coupler configured to incouple light from the projector into total internal reflection (TIR) light within the waveguide; and an output coupler configured to outcouple the TIR light out of the waveguide (See e.g. Fig. 1; Paragraphs 0018-0021).
Regarding claim 6, Arneson teaches the augmented reality device of claim 5, as above.
Arneson further teaches that the waveguide further comprises a fold grating configured to provide beam expansion to the incoupled light (See e.g. Fig. 1; Paragraphs 0018-0021).
Regarding claim 7, Arneson teaches the augmented reality device of claim 1, as above.
Arneson further teaches that the waveguide-based display is housed in a case configured to house and protect the smart device (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraphs 0018, 0022-0026, and 0028-0030).
Regarding claim 8, Arneson teaches the augmented reality device of claim 3, as above.
Arneson further teaches that the waveguide-based display is housed in a case configured to house and protect the smart device (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraphs 0018, 0022-0026, and 0028-0030).
Regarding claim 9, Arneson teaches the augmented reality device of claim 8, as above.
Arneson further teaches that the waveguide-based display is retractable into the case (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraphs 0018, 0022-0026, and 0028-0030).
Regarding claim 10, Arneson teaches the augmented reality device of claim 9, as above.
Arneson further teaches that the waveguide-based display is retractable by a sliding motion (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraphs 0018, 0022-0026, and 0028-0030).
Regarding claim 11, Arneson teaches the augmented reality device of claim 10, as above.
Arneson further teaches that the sliding motion positions the waveguide-based display on a side of the case (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraphs 0018, 0022-0026, and 0028-0030).
Regarding claim 12, Arneson teaches the augmented reality device of claim 10, as above.
Arneson further teaches that the sliding motion positions the waveguide-based display on a top portion of the case (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraphs 0018, 0022-0026, and 0028-0030).
Regarding claim 13, Arneson teaches the augmented reality device of claim 9, as above.
Arneson further teaches that the waveguide-based display is retractable by a rotational motion (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraphs 0018, 0022-0026, and 0028-0030).
Regarding claim 14, Arneson teaches the augmented reality device of claim 13, as above.
Arneson further teaches that the rotational motion positions the waveguide-based display to a side of the case (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraphs 0018, 0022-0026, and 0028-0030).
Regarding claim 15, Arneson teaches the augmented reality device of claim 13, as above.
Arneson further teaches that the rotational motion positions the waveguide-based display to a top side of the case (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraphs 0018, 0022-0026, and 0028-0030).
Regarding claim 16, Arneson teaches the augmented reality device of claim 8, as above.
Arneson further teaches that the projector is housed within the case (See e.g. Fig. 1; Paragraphs 0018-0021).
Regarding claim 21, Arneson teaches the augmented reality device of claim 1, as above.
Arneson further teaches that the waveguide-based display comprises a positioner which fixes the distance of a user’s eye from the waveguide-based display when the user is utilizing the waveguide-based display (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraphs 0018, 0022-0026, and 0028-0030).
Claim(s) 1-9 and 13-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Friesem et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2003/0063042; hereinafter – “Friesem”).
Regarding claim 1, Friesem teaches an augmented reality device comprising:
a smart device (31) including a plurality of components (See e.g. Fig. 2; Paragraphs 0066-0068); and
a waveguide-based display (36) moveably connected to the smart device (See e.g. Fig. 2; Paragraphs 0067-0071),
wherein the waveguide-based display is configured to allow a user to simultaneously view image containing light and world light (See e.g. Fig. 2; Paragraphs 0069-0073), and
wherein each component of the plurality of components is positioned at a fixed distance from the waveguide-based display (See e.g. Fig. 2; Paragraphs 0067-0077).
Regarding claim 2, Friesem teaches the augmented reality device of claim 1, as above.
Friesem further teaches that the plurality of components are selected from a group consisting of: one or more cameras; one or more speakers; accelerometer; inertial measurement unit (IMU); one or more microphones; ambient light sensor; depth sensor; memory; processor; and battery (See e.g. Fig. 2; Paragraphs 0066-0071, 0078, and 0082).
Regarding claim 3, Friesem teaches the augmented reality device of claim 1, as above.
Friesem further teaches a projector (44) optically coupled with the waveguide-based display (See e.g. Fig. 2; Paragraphs 0071 and 0076-0079).
Regarding claim 4, Friesem teaches the augmented reality device of claim 3, as above.
Friesem further teaches that the projector can rotate with respect to the smart device (See e.g. Fig. 2; Paragraphs 0071 and 0076-0079).
Regarding claim 5, Friesem teaches the augmented reality device of claim 3, as above.
Friesem further teaches that the waveguide-based display comprises a waveguide (38) comprising: an input coupler (40) configured to incouple light from the projector into total internal reflection (TIR) light within the waveguide; and an output coupler (42) configured to outcouple the TIR light out of the waveguide (See e.g. Fig. 2; Paragraph 0069-0075).
Regarding claim 6, Friesem teaches the augmented reality device of claim 5, as above.
Friesem further teaches that the waveguide further comprises a fold grating (41) configured to provide beam expansion to the incoupled light (See e.g. Fig. 2; Paragraph 0069-0075).
Regarding claim 7, Friesem teaches the augmented reality device of claim 1, as above.
Friesem further teaches that the waveguide-based display is housed in a case configured to house and protect the smart device (See e.g. Fig. 2; Paragraphs 0066-0071 and 0075-0076).
Regarding claim 8, Friesem teaches the augmented reality device of claim 3, as above.
Friesem further teaches that the waveguide-based display is housed in a case configured to house and protect the smart device (See e.g. Fig. 2; Paragraphs 0066-0071 and 0075-0076).
Regarding claim 9, Friesem teaches the augmented reality device of claim 8, as above.
Friesem further teaches that the waveguide-based display is retractable into the case (See e.g. Fig. 2; Paragraph 0075).
Regarding claim 13, Friesem teaches the augmented reality device of claim 9, as above.
Friesem further teaches that the waveguide-based display is retractable by a rotational motion (See e.g. Fig. 2; Paragraph 0075).
Regarding claim 14, Friesem teaches the augmented reality device of claim 13, as above.
Friesem further teaches that the rotational motion positions the waveguide-based display to a side of the case (See e.g. Fig. 2; Paragraph 0075).
Regarding claim 15, Friesem teaches the augmented reality device of claim 13, as above.
Friesem further teaches that the rotational motion positions the waveguide-based display to a top side of the case (See e.g. Fig. 2; Paragraph 0075).
Regarding claim 16, Friesem teaches the augmented reality device of claim 8, as above.
Friesem further teaches that the projector is housed within the case (See e.g. Fig. 2; Paragraphs 0071 and 0076-0079).
Regarding claim 17, Friesem teaches the augmented reality device of claim 8, as above.
Friesem further teaches that the case further comprises a circuit board (35), a battery (33), and a connector (35, 52) (See e.g. Fig. 2; Paragraphs 0067, 0071, 0078, and 0082).
Regarding claim 18, Friesem teaches the augmented reality device of claim 17, as above.
Friesem further teaches that the connector is in electrical communication with the circuit board and the smart device (See e.g. Fig. 2; Paragraphs 0067, 0071, 0078, and 0082).
Regarding claim 19, Friesem teaches the augmented reality device of claim 17, as above.
Friesem further teaches that the battery is used as an auxiliary battery for the smart device (See e.g. Fig. 2; Paragraphs 0067, 0071, 0078, and 0082).
Regarding claim 20, Friesem teaches the augmented reality device of claim 8, as above.
Friesem further teaches that the battery is further used to power the projector (See e.g. Fig. 2; Paragraphs 0067, 0071, 0078, and 0082).
Regarding claim 21, Friesem teaches the augmented reality device of claim 1, as above.
Friesem further teaches that the waveguide-based display comprises a positioner which fixes the distance of a user’s eye from the waveguide-based display when the user is utilizing the waveguide-based display (See e.g. Fig. 2; Paragraphs 0067-0077).
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) 4 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arneson in view of Yamashita (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2010/0248792).
Regarding claim 4, Arneson teaches the augmented reality device of claim 3, as above.
Arneson fails to explicitly disclose that the projector can rotate with respect to the smart device.
However, Yamashita teaches a display device and mobile terminal device comprising a smart device (1) including a plurality of components, a waveguide-based display (21, 22) moveably connected to the smart device, and a projector (3) optically coupled with the waveguide-based display, wherein the projector can rotate with respect to the smart device (See e.g. Figs. 1-3; Paragraphs 0030-0034 and 0041-0044).
Yamashita teaches this projector that rotates with respect to the smart device in order “to provide a display device and a mobile terminal device that can be reduced in size and weight and accomplishes cost reduction and simplified control processing by simplification of a configuration thereof” (Paragraph 0017).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the augmented reality device of Arneson such that the projector can rotate as in Yamashita in order “to provide a display device and a mobile terminal device that can be reduced in size and weight and accomplishes cost reduction and simplified control processing by simplification of a configuration thereof,” as taught by Yamashita (Paragraph 0017), since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art, In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), and since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art, In re Stevens, 212 F.2d 197, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Regarding claim 17, Arneson teaches the augmented reality device of claim 8, as above.
Arneson fails to explicitly disclose that the case further comprises a circuit board, a battery, and a connector.
However, Yamashita teaches a display device and mobile terminal device comprising a smart device (1) including a plurality of components, a waveguide-based display (21, 22) moveably connected to the smart device, wherein the waveguide-based display is housed in a case (1) configured to house and protect the smart device the case further comprises a circuit board (100, 500), a battery (600, 700), and a connector (100) (See e.g. Figs. 1-2 and 4; Paragraphs 0050-0059).
Yamashita teaches this circuit board, battery, and connector in order “to provide a display device and a mobile terminal device that can be reduced in size and weight and accomplishes cost reduction and simplified control processing by simplification of a configuration thereof” (Paragraph 0017).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the augmented reality device of Arneson such that the projector can rotate as in Yamashita in order “to provide a display device and a mobile terminal device that can be reduced in size and weight and accomplishes cost reduction and simplified control processing by simplification of a configuration thereof,” as taught by Yamashita (Paragraph 0017).
Regarding claim 18, Arneson in view of Yamashita teaches the augmented reality device of claim 17, as above.
Yamashita further teaches that the connector is in electrical communication with the circuit board and the smart device (See e.g. Figs. 1-2 and 4; Paragraphs 0050-0059).
Regarding claim 19, Arneson in view of Yamashita teaches the augmented reality device of claim 17, as above.
Yamashita further teaches that the battery is used as an auxiliary battery for the smart device (See e.g. Figs. 1-2 and 4; Paragraphs 0050-0059).
Regarding claim 20, Arneson in view of Yamashita teaches the augmented reality device of claim 8, as above.
Yamashita further teaches that the battery is further used to power the projector (See e.g. Figs. 1-2 and 4; Paragraphs 0050-0059).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friesem in view of Yamashita.
Regarding claim 4, Friesem teaches the augmented reality device of claim 3, as above.
Friesem further teaches that the projector can rotate with respect to the smart device (See e.g. Fig. 2; Paragraphs 0071 and 0076-0079).
Additionally, Yamashita teaches a display device and mobile terminal device comprising a smart device (1) including a plurality of components, a waveguide-based display (21, 22) moveably connected to the smart device, and a projector (3) optically coupled with the waveguide-based display, wherein the projector can rotate with respect to the smart device (See e.g. Figs. 1-3; Paragraphs 0030-0034 and 0041-0044).
Yamashita teaches this projector that rotates with respect to the smart device in order “to provide a display device and a mobile terminal device that can be reduced in size and weight and accomplishes cost reduction and simplified control processing by simplification of a configuration thereof” (Paragraph 0017).
Therefore, even if Friesem did not disclose the rotating projector, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the augmented reality device of Friesem such that the projector can rotate as in Yamashita in order “to provide a display device and a mobile terminal device that can be reduced in size and weight and accomplishes cost reduction and simplified control processing by simplification of a configuration thereof,” as taught by Yamashita (Paragraph 0017), since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art, In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), and since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 212 F.2d 197, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Claim(s) 5 is/are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arneson in view of Friesem.
Regarding claim 5, Arneson teaches the augmented reality device of claim 3, as above.
Arneson further teaches that the waveguide-based display comprises a waveguide comprising: an input coupler configured to incouple light from the projector into total internal reflection (TIR) light within the waveguide; and an output coupler configured to outcouple the TIR light out of the waveguide (See e.g. Fig. 1; Paragraphs 0018-0021).
Additionally, Friesem teaches an electronic utility device incorporating a compact virtual image display comprising a smart device (31) including a plurality of components (See e.g. Fig. 2; Paragraphs 0066-0068); a waveguide-based display (36) moveably connected to the smart device (See e.g. Fig. 2; Paragraphs 0067-0071); and a projector (44) optically coupled with the waveguide-based display (See e.g. Fig. 2; Paragraphs 0071 and 0076-0079), wherein the waveguide-based display comprises a waveguide (38) comprising: an input coupler (40) configured to incouple light from the projector into total internal reflection (TIR) light within the waveguide; and an output coupler (42) configured to outcouple the TIR light out of the waveguide (See e.g. Fig. 2; Paragraph 0069-0075).
Friesem teaches this input and output coupler such that “the surface area of element 42 can be extremely small and yet be able to provide a large, highly resolved viewable image” (Paragraph 0071) in order to provide “electronic utility devices incorporating compact virtual image display which utilizes diffractive optical elements (DOEs) and planar optics so as to minimize both the complexity and thickness of the display” (Paragraph 0012).
Therefore, even if Arneson did not teach the claimed input and output couplers, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the augmented reality device of Arneson with the input and output coupler of Friesem such that “the surface area of element 42 can be extremely small and yet be able to provide a large, highly resolved viewable image” in order to provide “electronic utility devices incorporating compact virtual image display which utilizes diffractive optical elements (DOEs) and planar optics so as to minimize both the complexity and thickness of the display,” as taught by Friesem (Paragraphs 0012 and 0071).
Claim(s) 6 is/are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arneson or Friesem in view of Jachimowicz et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,243,056; hereinafter – “Jachimowicz”).
Regarding claim 6, Arneson and Friesem each teaches the augmented reality device of claim 5, as above.
Arneson further teaches that the waveguide further comprises a fold grating configured to provide beam expansion to the incoupled light (See e.g. Fig. 1; Paragraphs 0018-0021).
Friesem further teaches that the waveguide further comprises a fold grating (41) configured to provide beam expansion to the incoupled light (See e.g. Fig. 2; Paragraph 0069-0075).
While Arneson and Friesem each teaches a structure reading on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed language, in the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner further submits reference Jachimowicz.
Jachimowicz teaches a transceiver with miniature virtual image display comprising a smart device (11) and a waveguide-based display (12) movably connected to the smart device wherein the waveguide-based display comprises a waveguide comprising: an input coupler configured to incouple light from the projector into total internal reflection (TIR) light within the waveguide; an output coupler configured to outcouple the TIR light out of the waveguide; and a fold grating (75, 76, 77, 87, 89) configured to provide beam expansion to the incoupled light (See e.g. Figs. 1 and 7-8; C. 5, L. 21-67).
Jachimowicz teaches this fold grating to “provide the required amount of magnification, aberration correction and/or filtering so that a virtual image of a desired size is viewable at an aperture” and to provide “a display in which the overall size is reduced somewhat and the amount of material in the waveguide is reduced to reduce weight and material utilized” (C. 5, L. 21-67).
Therefore, even if Arneson of Friesem did not teach the required fold grating, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the augmented reality device of Arneson of Friesem with the fold grating of Jachimowicz to “provide the required amount of magnification, aberration correction and/or filtering so that a virtual image of a desired size is viewable at an aperture” and to provide “a display in which the overall size is reduced somewhat and the amount of material in the waveguide is reduced to reduce weight and material utilized,” as in Jachimowicz (C. 5, L. 21-67).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Min (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2021/0373602) teaches a foldable virtual reality device with a similar waveguide-based display.
Griffith (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2020/0213433) teaches a portable terminal accessory device for holographic projection and user interface.
Lapidot et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2019/0227314) teaches an apparatus and method for augmented reality comprising a similar waveguide display.
Liu (U.S. Patent No. 9,230,515) teaches a hand-held electronic device comprising a waveguide display and a smart device.
Arneson et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2006/0145947) teaches a foldable electronic device with virtual image display comprising a similar smart device and waveguide display.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas R Pasko whose telephone number is (571)270-1876. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 5 PM.
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, William Kraig can be reached at 571-272-8660. 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.
Nicholas R. Pasko
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2896
/Nicholas R. Pasko/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights