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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A1, B1, C1, D1 and F1 in the reply filed on April 20, 2026 is acknowledged. Applicant has kindly identified claims 1-6, 8-9, 11-13 and 15-20 as being generic or directed to the claimed species. However, upon review claims 8 and 11 with multiple LED sources joined by a dichroic wedge is directed to withdrawn Species C2, drawn to the illumination light from LEDs along multiple axis joined by a dichroic wedge, and therefore are considered withdrawn. For clarity, claims 7-8, 10-11 and 14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species A2, B2, C2, D2 or F2, and claims 1-6, 9, 12-13 and 15-20 are examined below.
Priority
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed provisional application, Application No. 63/487,645, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for one or more claims of this application. The written description of the provisional application is eight sentences and there are no figures. Claim 1 is a 112(f) for anything that includes a “means for acquiring and/or processing data” – the instant application has no reference to acquiring or processing data. Claims 2-3 are omnibus claims. No part of the provisional application has any support for at least a “relay optics having a first surface, a second surface, and a third surface, the first surface configured to reflect the illumination light to produce first reflected light, the second surface configured to reflect the first reflected light to produce second reflected light, the third surface configured to reflect the second reflected light to produce third reflected light, and the second surface configured to transmit the third reflected light to produce transmitted light towards the prism; and a spatial light modulator (SLM) optically coupled to the prism” as required by independent claim 1; or “a prism … a spatial light modulator (SLM) optically coupled to the prism” as required by independent claim 9; or “an array of light emitting diodes (LEDs) comprising a first LED configured to produce first light and a second LED configured to produce second light … at least one lens optically coupled between the array of LEDs and the relay optics, the at least one lens configured to direct the first light and the second light towards the relay optics; a spatial light modulator (SLM); and a prism optically coupled between the relay optics and the spatial light modulator, wherein the relay optics is configured to direct the first light and the second light towards the prism, and wherein the prism is configured to direct the first light towards a first zone of the SLM and to direct the second light towards a second zone of the SLM” as required by independent claim 15. Given the breadth of the claims, the nature of the invention and the state of the prior art of the instant application (Wands factors A-C), one of ordinary skill could not predictability arrive at the claimed invention (Wands factor D-E) using the provisional application which lacks any substantive description of the claimed invention or examples, such as a drawing (Wands factors F-G). Considering all the evidence, as a whole, the examiner concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art would need to engage in undue experimentation to make or use the invention based on the content of the provisional application (Wands factor H), see MPEP 2164.01(a).
Accordingly, for applicant’s information, since the independent claims (and therefore the dependent claims) are not supported by provisional patent 63/487,645 the instant application is not entitled to the benefit of the filing date of this provisional patent. Therefore, for purpose of prior art, the filing date of the instant application, i.e. February 26, 2024, will be used.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 324, 330, 334 and 336.
The drawings have not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the drawings.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claim18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 18 “wherein the array of LEDs is an array of miniLEDs or an array of microLEDs” raises clarity issues. In the art, a mini LED are liquid crystal displays with an LED illumination array1 and a microLED is a flat panel display2. Insofar as the array of LEDs in the instant application is understood it is a light source that is modulated by a liquid crystal or a digital micromirror SLM (paragraph [0025 & 0030]) to generate a display image. It is unclear if the light source in the claimed display is replaced by an array of displays or if applicant is claiming a size (and possibly density) of the LEDs. The specification repeats the same language and sheds no light on this issue. The examiner’s best guess is that applicant is limiting the LED array to be substantially similar to the size/spacing of LEDs in mini LED or microLED displays, as opposed to having an array of displays. For purposes of examination the examiner will use “wherein the array of LEDs is similar to the LED arrays of a display or display.” Since this is still vague and indefinite does not overcome a 112(b) rejection and raises enablement questions. The examiner respectfully suggests cancelling this claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 9 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gao et al. US Patent Application Publication 2014/0177023.
Regarding claim 9 Gao discloses a system (title e.g. figure 4) comprising: an illumination module (inherent there is a light source generating “incoming light”); a prism (e.g. beamsplitter 430 paragraph [0059] “430 may be … a polarized cube beamsplitter”); a single-piece relay optics (e.g. objective optics 420) optically coupled between the illumination module and the prism (e.g. see figure 4); and a spatial light modulator (e.g. SLM 440) optically coupled to the prism (e.g. see figure 4).
Regarding claim 12 Gao discloses the system of claim 9, as set forth above. Gao further discloses it is further comprising projection optics (e.g. eyepiece 410) optically coupled to the prism (e.g. see figure 4).
Regarding claim 13 Gao discloses the system of claim 12, as set forth above. Gao further discloses wherein the projection optics (e.g. 410) is a freeform eyepiece (e.g. see figure 4).
Claims 15-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bartlett et al. US Patent Application Publication 2020/0081176.
Regarding claim 15 Bartlett discloses a system (title e.g. figures 5 & 7-8 near-eye display x003) comprising: an array of light emitting diodes (LEDs) comprising a first LED (e.g. light source x02 & paragraph [0017] “may be LEDs”) configured to produce first light (e.g. see figures 5 & 7-8) and a second LED (e.g. light source x20 & paragraph [0017]) configured to produce second light (e.g. see figures 5 & 7-8); relay optics e.g. mirror x10); at least one lens (e.g. lens x08 or x14) optically coupled between the array of LEDs and the relay optics (e.g. see figures 5 & 7-8), the at least one lens configured to direct the first light and the second light towards the relay optics (e.g. see figures 5 & 7-8); a spatial light modulator (e.g. spatial light modulator/SLM x12); and a prism (e.g. prism x30) optically coupled between the relay optics and the spatial light modulator (e.g. see figures 5 & 7-8), wherein the relay optics is configured to direct the first light and the second light towards the prism (e.g. see figures 5 & 7-8), and wherein the prism is configured to direct the first light towards a first zone of the SLM and to direct the second light towards a second zone of the SLM (e.g. see figures 5 & 7-8).
Regarding claim 16 Bartlett discloses the system of claim 15, as set forth above. Bartlett further discloses it is further comprising an array of collimating lenses (e.g. lenses x04 & x22 & paragraph [0022] “504 collimate light from light source ... 522 collimate light from light source”) optically coupled between the array of LEDs (e.g. x02 & x20) and the at least one lens (e.g. x05 or x14).
Regarding claim 17 Bartlett discloses the system of claim 15, as set forth above. Bartlett further discloses wherein the array of LEDs (e.g. x02 & x20) is a two dimensional array (e.g. see figures 5 & 7-8) of LEDs.
Regarding claim 20 Bartlett discloses the system of claim 15, as set forth above. Bartlett further discloses wherein the first zone overlaps the second zone (e.g. see figures 5 & 7-8).
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alasaarela et al. US Patent Application Publication 2009/0190101 in view of Kapany et al. US Patent 3,941,467.
Regarding claim 1 Alasaarela discloses a system (title e.g. figure 7) comprising: an illumination module configured to produce illumination light (e.g. combination of LEDs 700, 702, 704 & modules 706, 708, 710 & x-cube 712 & lens 714); a prism (e.g. TIR-prism 728); relay optics (e.g. TIR-prism 716) optically coupled between the illumination module and the prism and produces reflected light transmitted towards the prism (e.g. see figure 7); and a spatial light modulator (e.g. micro-display/DMD-array 722) optically coupled to the prism (e.g. see figure 7), wherein the prism (e.g. 728) is configured to direct the transmitted light towards the SLM (e.g. see figure 7), and the SLM is configured to produce modulated light based on the transmitted light (axiomatic).
Alasaarela does not disclose the relay optics having a first surface, a second surface, and a third surface, the first surface configured to reflect the illumination light to produce first reflected light, the second surface configured to reflect the first reflected light to produce second reflected light, the third surface configured to reflect the second reflected light to produce third reflected light, and the second surface configured to transmit the third reflected light to produce transmitted light.
Applicants stated issue is to have a folded-path relay optics that makes efficient use of space, see instant application paragraphs [0021, 0029, 0033, 0037, 0039 & 0041].
Kapany teaches a similar system (title, see figure 2) including an illumination module (e.g. combination of 20, 28, 32, 34 & 42) that is optically coupled to relay optics (e.g. prism 52) that transmits light to further optical elements (e.g. 62 & 64); and further teaches the relay optics (e.g. 52) having a first surface (e.g. surface 56), a second surface (e.g. surface 54), and a third surface (e.g. surface 58), the first surface (e.g. 56) configured to reflect the illumination light to produce first reflected light (e.g. see figure 2), the second surface (e.g. 54) configured to reflect the first reflected light to produce second reflected light (e.g. see figure 2), the third surface (e.g. 58) configured to reflect the second reflected light to produce third reflected light (e.g. see figure 2), and the second surface (e.g. 54) configured to transmit the third reflected light to produce transmitted light (e.g. see figure 2) for the purpose of having the light reflected at least three times by the relay optic/prism to obtain a greater optical path length with an economical and extremely durable relay optic/prism that is compact (inter alia column 2 lines 20-29) and addresses applicant’s stated issue. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the system as disclosed by Alasaarela to have the relay optics having a first surface, a second surface, and a third surface, the first surface configured to reflect the illumination light to produce first reflected light, the second surface configured to reflect the first reflected light to produce second reflected light, the third surface configured to reflect the second reflected light to produce third reflected light, and the second surface configured to transmit the third reflected light to produce transmitted light as taught by Kapany for the purpose of having the light reflected at least three times by the relay optic/prism to obtain a greater optical path length with an economical and extremely durable relay optic/prism that is compact, thereby addressing applicant’s stated issue.
Regarding claim 2 the combination of Alasaarela as modified by Kapany disclose the system of claim 1, as set forth above. Alasaarela further discloses wherein the relay optics (e.g. 716) is a single piece (e.g. see figure 7).
Regarding claim 3 the combination of Alasaarela as modified by Kapany disclose the system of claim 1, as set forth above. Alasaarela further discloses wherein the relay optics (e.g. 716) comprises plastic (paragraph [0094] “prisms can be chosen from … plastic materials”).
Regarding claim 4 the combination of Alasaarela as modified by Kapany disclose the system of claim 1, as set forth above. Alasaarela further discloses wherein the illumination module (e.g. combination of 700, 702, 704, 706, 708, 710, 712 & 714) comprises: an array of light emitting diodes (e.g. 700, 702, 704); an array of collimating lenses (e.g. 706, 708, 710) optically coupled to the array of LEDs (e.g. paragraph [0073] “Light is collected and collimated by using illumination modules 706, 708, 710”); and at least one lens (e.g. 714) optically coupled to the array of collimating lenses (e.g. see figure 7).
Regarding claim 5 the combination of Alasaarela as modified by Kapany disclose the system of claim 1, as set forth above. Alasaarela further discloses it is further comprising projection optics (e.g. projection lens 730) optically coupled to the prism (e.g. see figure 7), wherein the prism (e.g. 728) is configured to direct the modulated light towards the projection optics (e.g. see figure 7), and wherein the projection optics is configured to project the modulated light to produce projection light (e.g. see figure 7).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alasaarela et al. US Patent Application Publication 2009/0190101 in view of Kapany et al. US Patent 3,941,467 and in further view of Gao et al. US Patent Application Publication 2014/0177023.
Regarding claim 6 the combination of Alasaarela as modified by Kapany disclose the system of claim 5, as set forth above. Alasaarela and Kapany do not disclose wherein the projection optics comprises a freeform eyepiece.
Gao teaches a similar system (title e.g. figure 4), a set forth above; and further teaches the projection optics comprises a freeform eyepiece (e.g. 410 paragraph [0007] “the present invention may utilize freeform optical technology in eyepiece optics”) for the purpose of achieving a compact and lightweight display design (paragraph [0007]). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the system as disclosed by the combination of Alasaarela as modified by Kapany to have the projection optics comprises a freeform eyepiece as taught by Gao for the purpose of achieving a compact and lightweight display design.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartlett et al. US Patent Application Publication 2020/0081176 in view of Wikipedia webpage “LED-backlit LCD” as of 2023.
Regarding claim 18 Bartlett discloses the system of claim 15, as set forth above. Bartlett does not disclose the array of LEDs is similar to the LED arrays of a miniLED display or microLED display. Wikipedia teaches a similar displays illuminated by arrays of LEDs (title) may include miniLED (page 4 lines 18-20) for the purpose of providing deeper blacks and a higher contrast ratio (page 4 lines 18-20). This would be use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007), see MPEP 2143. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the system as disclosed by Bartlett to have the array of LEDs is similar to the LED arrays of a miniLED display or microLED display for the purpose of providing deeper blacks and a higher contrast ratio and since this would be use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartlett et al. US Patent Application Publication 2020/0081176.
Regarding claim 19 Bartlett figures 5 & 7-8 discloses the system of claim 15, as set forth above. Bartlett further discloses Bartlett figures 5 & 7-8 do not disclose wherein the first LED is configured to turn off while the second LED is turned on. Bartlett figure 1 teaches a similar system (e.g. near-eye display 100) with a first LED (e.g. 102), a second LED (e.g. 102) where the light from the first and second LEDs overlaps on a SLM (e.g. SLM 112); and further teaches the first LED is configured to turn off while the second LED is turned on (paragraph [0021] “alternately turning on and off light sources 102 and 104”) for the purpose of achieving extended pixel resolution without any mechanical pixel shifting device and easing power dissipation issues (paragraph [0021]). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the system as disclosed by Bartlett figures 5 & 7-8 to have the first and second LEDs alternately turning on and off as taught by Bartlett figure 1 for the purpose of achieving extended pixel resolution without any mechanical pixel shifting device and easing power dissipation issues.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shafer "Mini-LED vs MicroLED - What is the difference?" 2019; in further evidence that the terms mini-LED and microLED refer to displays and not illumination modules inside of displays.
Takahashi US Patent Application Publication 2013/0134301; in regards to projection optics being a freeform eyepiece, e.g. see figure 1, for the purpose of guiding and projecting light to a user’s eye with a single element, paragraph [0003].
Urey et al. US Patent Application Publication 2018/0003962; in regards to a similar system with an 2D array of LEDs, e.g. see figures 113-114.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to George G King whose telephone number is (303)297-4273. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571) 272-2333. 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.
/George G. King/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 May 9, 2026
1 As evidenced by Wikipedia webpage “LED-backlit LCD” as of 2023.
2 As evidenced by Wikipedia webpage “microLED” as of 2023.
3 The first digit in the number indicates the figure number, i.e. 500 is the display in the fifth figure, 700 is the display in the seventh figure, etc. For brevity the first digit is replaced by an x to cover all referenced figures, i.e. 5 & 7-8.
Prosecution Insights