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 § 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.
Claim 3 is 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 3 recites the limitation "the first holographic surface." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests amending Claim 3 to read “The reality head worn display of claim 2” .
Claim Construction
Note that, for purposes of compact prosecution, multiple reasons for rejection may be provided for a claim or a part of the claim. The rejection reasons are cumulative, and Applicant should review all the stated reasons as guides to improving the claim language and advancing the prosecution toward an allowance.
Claims 1-8 recite “a transparent material having a front surface … holographic surface coincident the front surface and patterned to refract light … an infrared light source … a see-through combiner with a partially reflective surface … ” a generic term [material, surface, combiner] modified by functional language but not modified by structure or a structural term and not naming a structure readily recognized by persons of skill in the art to perform the claimed function. The limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph, and shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification and equivalents thereof. A transparent material is supported as lenses in general as described in Specification, Paragraph 3 or glass and plastic lenses or polarization plates as described in Specification, Fig.27 and Paragraph 198. A holographic surface is supported as a wave plate as described in Specification, Fig. 27 or a waveguide as described in Paragraph 5. A see-through combiner with a partially reflective surface is supported as a partially reflective mirror as in original Claim 5 and Specification, Paragraph 195, or a polarized reflective optic Paragraph 195.
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.
The factual inquiries 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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20250020919 to Samaniego (“Samaniego”) in view of US 20050276448 to Pryor (“Pryor”).
Regarding Claim 1: “An augmented reality head worn display, comprising: (“any of the display systems, optical structures, and/or light control structures may be used in a wearable device such as a head-mounted display” Samaniego, Paragraph 142.)
a liquid crystal digital display (LCD); (“Display panel 104 may be any suitable display device, such as a liquid crystal display (LCD) panel” Samaniego, Paragraph 39.)
a backlight positioned to provide light through a back surface of the LCD, comprising at least: (“FIG. 16 shows an illustrative configuration 1600 of an integrated backlight/light control device 1602 ("integrated backlight 1602") that produces backlight for a display panel 1604.” Samaniego, Paragraph 115.)
a transparent material having a front surface coincident the back surface of the LCD; (There are several examples of such a material, such as “A Fresnel lens 1622 is positioned between integrated backlight 1602 and display panel 1604 to direct image light 1612 to a desired location 1624. … a diffuser (not shown) is positioned between second beam expander 1616 and Fresnel lens 1622 … A gap may be located between the diffuser and display panel 1604” Samaniego, Paragraph 115.)
holographic surface coincident the front surface and patterned to refract light received through a side surface of the transparent material and direct it toward the back surface of the LCD; (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, the holographic surface can be a waveguide beam expander and light received through a side surface can be a laser. See the original Claim 2. Prior art teaches an example of this: “As shown in FIG. 16, integrated backlight 1602 includes a first beam expander 1614 and a second beam expander 1616. First beam expander 1614 expands collimated source beam 1608 in a first dimension and second beam expander 1616 expands collimated source beam 1608 in a second dimension, thereby forming collimated source beam 1610. First beam expander 1614 and second beam expander 1616 may be implemented by any suitable beam expanding component(s) (e.g., lenses, optics, waveguides, etc.),” where waveguides exemplify a holographic surface. Samaniego, Paragraph 116.)
an infrared light source positioned proximate a back surface of the transparent material to emit infrared light through the transparent material and through the LCD; (“Backlight 102 includes a light source, such as a light-emitting diode (LED) light source or any other suitable source of light.” Samaniego, Paragraph 36. “Display system 100 may include … an infrared light source, an infrared photodetector,” Samaniego, Paragraph 34. Thus an infrared backlight source would emit light from the backlight through the transparent material and LCD panel.)
an infrared camera positioned proximate the back surface of the clear material to receive the infrared light after it is emitted through the LCD and [reflected back through the LCD]; and (“display system 100 includes a backlight 102 … Display system 100 [positioned proximate a back surface] may include … an infrared light source, an infrared photodetector,” Samaniego, Paragraph 34.)
Samaniego does not teach that the camera is configured to detect light “reflected back through the LCD,” such as by a camera behind the LCD.
Pryor teaches this feature in the context of LDC displays: “maximum light returned to the camera behind the LCD by reflection back through the LCD from the datum. This is true either for use with the main display visible light source, or auxiliary sources for the camera, usually in the near IR.” Pryor, Paragraph 23.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to supplement the teachings of Samaniego to detect light reflected back through the LCD, as taught in Pryor, in order “to operate the LCD display, in conjunction with the use of machine vision.” Pryor, Paragraph 23. “The above arrangement will work in transreflective LCD systems too” Pryor, Paragraph 130.
Finally, in reviewing the present application, there does not seem to be objective evidence that the claim limitations are particularly directed to: addressing a particular problem which was recognized but unsolved in the art, producing unexpected results at the level of the ordinary skill in the art, or any other objective indicators of non-obviousness.
a see-through combiner with a partially reflective surface to receive the infrared light from the infrared light source and to reflect the infrared light back through the LCD to the infrared camera.” (“Display system 100 may include additional or alternative 25 components as may suit a particular implementation, such as one or more optical components ( e.g., lenses, filters, mirrors, light guides, diffractive elements, attenuators, etc.),” Samaniego, Paragraph 34. For example, “Second beam expander 1616 is shown as an array waveguide that expands the collimated source beam 1608 in another dimension through an array of transflective mirrors 1618 (e.g., partially reflective and partially transmissive mirrors).” Samaniego, Paragraph 116. Thus, an infrared backlight would illuminate this partially reflective surface and reflect some of it back. This element can also embody the reflectors in Samaniego, Paragraph 40 and Fig. 1 and similar examples in Pryor, Paragraph 129..)
Regarding Claim 2: “The reality head worn display of claim 1, wherein the backlight comprises
a laser light source to produce a column of light, (“Light source 1606 may be or may include any suitable device configured to produce collimated source beam 1608, such as a laser” Samaniego, Paragraph 116.)
a first holographic surface to produce a line of light from the column of light, and a second holographic surface to produce a two-dimensional surface of light from the line of light.” (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, a holographic surface can be a waveguide. See Specification, Paragraph 5. Prior art teaches this feature: “Collimated source beam 1608 may then be expanded in any suitable way. As shown in FIG. 16, integrated backlight 1602 includes a first beam expander 1614 and a second beam expander 1616. First beam expander 1614 expands collimated source beam 1608 in a first dimension and second beam expander 1616 expands collimated source beam 1608 in a second dimension, thereby forming collimated source beam 1610. First beam expander 1614 and second beam expander 1616 may be implemented by any suitable beam expanding component(s) (e.g., lenses, optics, waveguides, etc.),” where waveguides exemplify a holographic surface. Samaniego, Paragraph 116.)
Regarding Claim 3: “The reality head worn display of claim 1, wherein the infrared camera receives the infrared light through at least the first holographic surface.” (As noted in Claims 1 and 2, the infrared light can pass through the display system and then get reflected from the environment back toward the display system and thus would pass through at least one holographic surface of the display system and through the LCD. See Samaniego, Fig. 1. This light can then be captured by a camera behind the LCD as in Pryor, Paragraph 23. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 4: “The reality head worn display of claim 1, wherein the see-through combiner comprises a partially reflective surface through which a user views an external environment proximate the user, the partially reflective surface being configured to reflect light from the LCD to generate an image that overlays the external environment from a perspective of the user.” (For example, “First reflector 106 and second reflector 108 may each be any suitable device configured to reflect first image light 114-1 to thereby fold the optical path of first image light 114-1. … (e.g., partially reflective and partially transmissive mirrors).” Samaniego, Paragraphs 40, 37, 16, Fig. 1. As noted in Fig. 1, the partially reflective part of the mirror is configured to reflect the display image toward the viewer and a partially transmissive part of the mirror would pass the light from the environment toward the viewer. See a similar embodiment in Pryor, Paragraph 129 and statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 5: “The reality head worn display of claim 4, wherein the partially reflective surface comprises a partial mirror.” (“(e.g., partially reflective and partially transmissive mirrors).” Samaniego, Paragraph 16. See a similar embodiment in Pryor, Paragraph 129 and statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 6: “The reality head worn display of claim 4, wherein the partially reflective surface comprises a holographic surface configured to reflect at least a portion of light emitted from the LCD and reflect at least a portion of light from the infrared light source.” (“a holographic diffuser … For instance, diffuser 1414 may be located at an observation point of an eye of a viewer [coincident to the reflector of Fig. 1], in front of or behind the observation point of the eye of the viewer, or at any other suitable location (e.g., on the viewer-side of eyepiece 110). Holographic element 1410 may also be used in other applications and systems that do not fold an optical path. In such applications, diffuser 1414 may be located at a position corresponding to the location of an eyepiece relative to the display panel 1412, an observation point of an eye of a viewer [coincident to the reflector of Fig. 1], or any other suitable location.” Samaniego, Paragraph 105. Thus, a holographic surface can be located at the same location, and be a part of, the reflective surface.)
Regarding Claim 7: “The reality head worn display of claim 4, wherein the partially reflective surface comprises a holographic surface.” (See rejection in Claim 6.)
Regarding Claim 8: “The reality head worn display of claim 4, wherein the partially reflective surface comprises a holographic surface configured to reflect at least a portion of light emitted from the LCD and reflect at least a portion of light from the infrared light source.” (See rejection reasons in Claims 1 and 6. As discussed in Claim 1, the infrared backlight would be emitted from the LCD along with any other backlight, and the reflective surfaces that can comprise a holographic surface (as discussed in Claims 1 and 6) would then reflect at least a portion of that light. See Samaniego Fig. 1)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH whose telephone number is (571)270-7940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thu. 9am - 8pm.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at (571)272-7383. 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.
/MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483