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
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shamir et al. (US 2019/0121132) in view of Hayakawa et al. (US 6,249,391) and Cai et al. (US 2023/0251494).
Regarding claim 1, Shamir discloses a near-eye display device, comprising: an image generating device disposed to provide an image light (abstract, figs. 1-3, ¶ 28-36, light projection unit 106);
an optical prism element disposed on a transmission path of the image light from the image generating device, wherein the optical prism element is a relay optical element disposed to guide the image light (figs. 1-3, ¶ 39-41, optical system with lenses and reflectors disclosed, e.g., reflector 148 may be a prism; see also ¶ 48),
and a partial reflective optical element disposed on a transmission path of the image light from the optical prism element, wherein the partial reflective optical element is an optical combiner disposed to guide the image light and an external ambient light toward an exit pupil (figs. 1-3, ¶ 42-44, partially transmissive partially reflective optical part 112; see also ¶ 32),
wherein the image generating device comprises a display element having a display plane (figs. 1-3, ¶ 28-36, light projection unit 106 projects light encoded information based on received data).
Shamir fails to disclose the optical prism element comprises a first refractive surface, a first reflective surface, a second reflective surface, a plane mirror and a second refractive surface that guide the image light in sequence, each of the surfaces is eccentrically positioned relative to the others and form an interior filled with a medium having a refractive index greater than 1; and a chief ray of the image light satisfies the following conditions: (1) the chief ray passes through the first refractive surface along a projection optical axis, and the projection optical axis is perpendicular to the display plane: (2) the chief ray is in a converging state after passing through the first refractive surface: and (3) the chief ray is in a crossed state relative to the projection optical axis either between the first reflective surface and the second reflective surface, or between the second reflective surface and the second refractive surface.
Hayakawa teaches the optical prism element comprises a first refractive surface, a first reflective surface, a second reflective surface, a plane mirror and a second refractive surface that guide the image light in sequence, each of the surfaces is eccentrically positioned relative to the others and form an interior filled with a medium having a refractive index greater than 1 (abstract, figs. 1-5, col. 3, ll. 43-67; see col. 20, prism with first transmitting surface 14, first reflecting surface 11, second reflecting surface 12, third reflecting surface 13, and second transmitting surface 15; see also fig. 17 and col. 9, l. 35-col. 10, l. 51),
and a chief ray of the image light satisfies the following conditions: (1) the chief ray passes through the first refractive surface along a projection optical axis, and the projection optical axis is perpendicular to the display plane (figs. 1-5, see col. 20, prism with first transmitting surface 14; see also fig. 17 and col. 9, l. 35-col. 10, l. 51);
and (3) the chief ray is in a crossed state relative to the projection optical axis either between the first reflective surface and the second reflective surface, or between the second reflective surface and the second refractive surface (figs. 1-5, col. 3, ll. 43-67; see col. 20, prism with first transmitting surface 14, first reflecting surface 11, second reflecting surface 12, third reflecting surface 13, and second transmitting surface 15; folded light path crosses itself; see also fig. 17 and col. 9, l. 35-col. 10, l. 51).
Shamir and Hayakawa are both directed to image forming optical systems with prisms. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Shamir with the prism of Hayakawa since such a modification provides a compact and high performance prism optical system (Hayakawa, col. 3, ll. 39-41) that corrects aberrations due to decentration (Hayakawa, abstract).
Cai teaches (2) the chief ray is in a converging state after passing through the first refractive surface (figs. 11-12, ¶ 68, region 1170 with positive optical power).
Shamir in view of Hayakawa and Cai are both directed to image viewing technologies for head-mounted displays. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Shamir in view of Hayakawa with the device of Cai since such a modification increases magnification, provides better image quality over a larger field, and reduces image brightness roll off (Cai, ¶ 68).
Regarding claim 2, Shamir discloses wherein the image generating device comprises a display control circuit, the display control circuit is disposed to control a circuit to drive the display element (figs. 1-3, ¶ 28-36, light projection unit 106 projects light encoded information based on received data).
Regarding claim 4, Hayakawa further teaches wherein at least two of the first refractive surface, the first reflective surface, the second reflective surface and the second refractive surface are free-form surfaces (col. 5, l. 38-col. 6, l. 38, free-form surfaces disclosed; see also col. 20).
Regarding claim 5, Hayakawa further teaches wherein each of the free-form surfaces is a non-rotationally symmetric surface and has a plane symmetry line, on one of the non-rotationally symmetric surface, opposite sides of the plane symmetry line are symmetrical to each other along the plane symmetry line (col. 5, l. 38-col. 6, l. 38, plane-symmetry free-form surfaces disclosed; see also col. 20).
Regarding claim 6, Hayakawa further teaches wherein the first reflective surface and the second reflective surface are concave reflective surfaces (figs. 1-5, col. 3, ll. 43-67, curved surfaces provide power; see also col. 8, l. 36-col. 9, l. 12).
Regarding claim 7, Hayakawa further teaches wherein the image light reflected by the first reflective surface and transmitted to the second reflective surface is divergent light beams or substantially parallel light beams (figs. 1-5, see col. 20).
Regarding claim 8, Hayakawa further teaches wherein the image light reflected by the second reflective surface and transmitted to the second refractive surface is convergent light beams (figs. 1-5, col. 3, ll. 43-67; see also col. 8, l. 36-col. 9, l. 12; see also col. 20).
Regarding claim 9, Shamir discloses wherein the near-eye display device has an intermediate image located between the partial reflective optical element and the optical prism element (figs. 1-3, ¶ 28-36, light projection unit 106 projects light encoded information based on received data, imagery overlaid with user’s line of sight).
Regarding claim 10, Hayakawa further teaches wherein the first reflective surface, the second reflective surface and the plane mirror are high reflectivity surfaces with a reflectivity greater than or equal to 97% (col. 9, l. 35-col. 10, l. 51, totally reflecting surface disclosed; see also col. 14, ll. 20-29, high reflectivity with minimal absorption; It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Shamir in view of Hayakawa as required by this claim, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Alter, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). Moreover, in the absence of any criticality (i.e., unobvious and/or unexpected result(s)), the parameter set forth above would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).).
Regarding claim 11, Shamir discloses wherein there are anti-reflective films on surfaces of the first refractive surface and the second refractive surface (¶ 41, non-reflective coating disclosed).
Regarding claim 12, Hayakawa further teaches wherein the image light incident on the first reflective surface along a projection optical axis and the image light emitted on the second reflective surface along the projection optical axis intersect each other to form an included angle, and the angle ranges from 85° to 95° (figs. 1-5, see col. 8, l. 36-col. 9, l. 34; see also col. 20; It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Shamir in view of Hayakawa as required by this claim, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Alter, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). Moreover, in the absence of any criticality (i.e., unobvious and/or unexpected result(s)), the parameter set forth above would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).).
Regarding claim 13, Hayakawa further teaches wherein the image light that is incident on the plane mirror along a projection optical axis and the image light that exits the plane mirror along the projection optical axis intersect each other to form an included angle, and the angle ranges from 70° to 80° (figs. 1-5, see col. 8, l. 36-col. 9, l. 34; see also col. 20; It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Shamir in view of Hayakawa as required by this claim, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Alter, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). Moreover, in the absence of any criticality (i.e., unobvious and/or unexpected result(s)), the parameter set forth above would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).).
Regarding claim 14, Shamir discloses wherein the partial reflective optical element has an inner surface, an outer surface and an intermediate medium, the intermediate medium is a transparent material with a refractive index greater than 1 (figs. 1-3, ¶ 42-44, partially transmissive partially reflective optical part 112; see also ¶ 32).
Hayakawa further teaches the inner surface and the outer surface are freeform surfaces (col. 5, l. 38-col. 6, l. 38, free-form surfaces disclosed; see also col. 20).
Regarding claim 15, Hayakawa further teaches wherein the inner surface and the outer surface are non-rotationally symmetric surfaces and have a plane symmetry line, on a same surface, opposite sides of the plane symmetry line are symmetrical to each other along the plane symmetry line (col. 5, l. 38-col. 6, l. 38, plane-symmetry free-form surfaces disclosed; see also col. 20).
Regarding claim 17, Shamir discloses wherein the inner surface and the outer surface are configured with an optical film, which has anti-fouling properties, anti-fogging properties, anti-scratch properties, and optical properties with a high reflectivity for at least one specific wavelength region and a high penetration for the at least one specific wavelength region (figs. 1-3, ¶ 42-44, partially transmissive partially reflective optical part 112, monochromatic or visible light disclosed; see also ¶ 46; see also ¶ 32).
Regarding claim 18, Shamir discloses wherein a reflectivity of the optical films on the inner surface in the at least one specific wavelength region that corresponds to a wavelength of the image light is greater than 95%, while a reflectivity of other wavelength regions that do not correspond to the wavelength of the image light is less than 5%, a transmittance of the optical film on the outer surface in the at least one specific wavelength region that corresponds to visible light regions is greater than 95% (figs. 1-3, ¶ 42-44, partially transmissive partially reflective optical part 112, monochromatic or visible light disclosed; see also ¶ 46; see also ¶ 32; It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Shamir in view of Hayakawa as required by this claim, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Alter, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). Moreover, in the absence of any criticality (i.e., unobvious and/or unexpected result(s)), the parameter set forth above would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shamir in view of Hayakawa and Cai as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Cakmakci et al. (US 2022/0269081).
Regarding claim 16, Shamir in view of Hayakawa and Cai fails to disclose wherein the inner surface has an inner surface curvature which is adjusted into an optical power required for ophthalmic prescription correction for eyes to observe a reflected and enlarged virtual image corresponding to the image light from the optical prism element, and the outer surface has an outer surface curvature which is adjusted into an optical power required for the ophthalmic prescription correction for eyes to observe a transmitted light from an external ambient light corresponding to a refractive index of the intermediate medium and the inner surface curvature.
Cakmakci teaches wherein the inner surface has an inner surface curvature which is adjusted into an optical power required for ophthalmic prescription correction for eyes to observe a reflected and enlarged virtual image corresponding to the image light from the optical prism element, and the outer surface has an outer surface curvature which is adjusted into an optical power required for the ophthalmic prescription correction for eyes to observe a transmitted light from an external ambient light corresponding to a refractive index of the intermediate medium and the inner surface curvature (¶ 12, ¶ 22, both eye-side and world-side surfaces cut according to specific curvatures for a user’s prescription).
Shamir in view of Hayakawa and Cai and Cakmakci are both directed to near-eye displays. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Shamir in view of Hayakawa and Cai with the corrective layers of Cakmakci since such a modification provides an HMD optical combiner that reduces bulk and weight and provides corrective prescriptions using commonly available optical cutting and grinding machinery (Cakmakci, ¶ 10).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 KEITH L CRAWLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7616. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10-6 ET.
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, Temesghen Ghebretinsae can be reached at 571-272-3017. 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.
/KEITH L CRAWLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2626