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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-2, 6-8, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200012098 A1 to Irzyk in view of US 20190369401 A1 to Rolland et al.
Regarding Claim 1. Irzyk discloses an image generator, comprising: an image source (Fig. 1 image-generation device 11) and a combiner; wherein the combiner is provided at a light-outgoing side of the image source; the image source is configured to emit imaging light, and the imaging light is capable of propagating towards the combiner (as shown in Fig. 1); and the combiner is configured to modulate incident imaging light hitting the combiner, so as to adjust a propagation direction of outgoing imaging light leaving the combiner (as shown in Fig. 1) and direct the outgoing imaging light leaving the combiner towards a light-outgoing area of the image generator (as shown in Fig. 1); and the combiner is also configured to form an enlarged virtual image of the image source (para 46).
Irzyk does not specifically disclose a metasurface on the combiner.
However, Rolland discloses a metasurface in the form of a meta-grating is added to the combiner (See para 31), as the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP2143(I)(B), KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s effective filing date to include a metasurface on the combiner.
Regarding Claim 2. Irzyk in view of Rolland further discloses the metasurface comprises a reflective metasurface (See Rolland Fig. 2A-2B combiner 20); and the reflective metasurface comprises a plurality of reflective unit cells (See at least Rolland Fig. 6); the reflective unit cells are configured to modulate at least part of incident imaging light hitting the reflective unit cells to modulate a propagation direction of outgoing imaging light leaving the reflective unit cells (See Rolland Fig, 2A-2B and Fig. 6A-6B); and a reverse extension line of the outgoing imaging light leaving the reflective unit cells passes through the enlarged virtual image (See Irzyk Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 6. Rolland further discloses the reflective metasurface comprises a reflective layer (See Fig. 6A PMMA coated over SiO2 creating a reflective layer with a low index material stacked with a high index material), a substrate layer and a plurality of nanostructures (See Fig. 6A Ag layer); the reflective layer is adhered to the substrate layer; and the nanostructures are provided on a side of the reflective layer close to the image source (as shown in Fig. 2A and Fig. 6A).
Regarding Claim 7. Rolland further discloses the substrate layer is provided on a side of the reflective layer away from the image source; the nanostructures are provided on the reflective layer, and provided on the side of the reflective layer close to the image source; or the substrate layer is transparent; the substrate layer is provided on the side of the reflective layer close to the image source; and the nanostructures are provided on the substrate layer, and provided on a side of the substrate layer close to the image source (As shown in Fig. 2A and Fig. 6A).
Regarding Claim 8. Rolland further discloses the nanostructures are provided on a flat surface; or the nanostructures are provided on an inwardly curved surface (See at least Fig. 2A or Fig. 6A).
Regarding Claim 18. Rolland further discloses a head-up display, comprising: the image generator of claim 1 and a reflective imaging device; and the reflective imaging device is configured to reflect outgoing imaging light leaving the image generator to an observation area (See at least Fig. 2A).
Regarding Claim 20. Irzyk further discloses a vehicle, comprising the head-up display of claim 18 (See at least Fig. 1).
Claims 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irzyk and Rolland as applied to claim 1 in view of US 20220171209 A1 to Moon et al.
Regarding Claim 9. As stated above Irzyk and Rolland discloses all the limitations of base claim 1.
Irzyk and Rolland do not specifically disclose the metasurface comprises a transmissive metasurface; and the transmissive metasurface comprises a plurality of transmissive unit cells; the transmissive unit cells are transmissive to incident imaging light entering the transmissive unit cells, and are configured to adjust a propagation direction of outgoing imaging light passing through the transmissive unit cells; and the outgoing imaging light passing through the transmissive unit cells is capable of forming the enlarged virtual image.
However, Moon discloses a transmissive metasurface; and the transmissive metasurface comprises a plurality of transmissive unit cells; the transmissive unit cells are transmissive to incident imaging light entering the transmissive unit cells, and are configured to adjust a propagation direction of outgoing imaging light passing through the transmissive unit cells; and the outgoing imaging light passing through the transmissive unit cells is capable of forming the enlarged virtual image (See at least Fig. 1), as the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP2143(I)(B), KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s effective filing date to include the metasurface comprises a transmissive metasurface; and the transmissive metasurface comprises a plurality of transmissive unit cells; the transmissive unit cells are transmissive to incident imaging light entering the transmissive unit cells, and are configured to adjust a propagation direction of outgoing imaging light passing through the transmissive unit cells; and the outgoing imaging light passing through the transmissive unit cells is capable of forming the enlarged virtual image.
Regarding Claim 10. Moon further discloses a first deflection angle of the incident imaging light entering the transmissive unit cells relative to a transmission reference position is larger than or equal to a second deflection angle of the outgoing imaging light passing through the transmissive unit cells relative to the transmission reference position; and the transmission reference position is coplanar with the transmissive metasurface (See at least Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 11. Moon further discloses for at least part of the incident imaging light entering the transmissive unit cells, a difference between a cotangent value of the second deflection angle and a cotangent value of the first deflection angle is a constant value; and the constant value is positively correlated to a distance from the transmissive unit cells to the transmission reference position (See at least Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 12. Moon further discloses an optical axis of the imaging light emitted by the image source is parallel to a principal optic axis of the transmissive metasurface (See at least Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 13. Rolland further discloses a reflective element (Fig. 2A mirror 30); the image source and the transmissive metasurface are provided on a same side of the reflective element (See Fig. 2A); and the reflective element is configured to reflect imaging light incident on the reflective element to the light-outgoing area of the image generator (as seen in Fig. 2A).
Regarding Claim 14. Rolland further discloses the image source, the transmissive metasurface and the reflective element are collinear, and the transmissive metasurface is arranged between the image source and the reflective element; the reflective element is configured to reflect outgoing imaging light passing through the transmissive metasurface; or the image source, the transmissive metasurface and the reflective element are not collinear, and the reflective element is configured to reflect the imaging light emitted from the image source to the transmissive metasurface (See Fig. 2A).
Regarding Claim 15. Moon further discloses the transmissive metasurface comprises a transparent substrate layer and a plurality of nanostructures provided on the transparent substrate layer (para 71).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irzyk and Rolland as applied to claim 6 in view of US 20220171209 A1 to Moon et al.
Regarding Claim 16. As stated above Irzyk and Rolland discloses all the limitations of base claim 6.
Rolland further discloses respective nanostructures have a pillar structure with a central axis in a height direction of the respective nanostructures; and intersection of the respective nanostructures with a first plane forms a first intersection line, and intersection of the respective nanostructures with a second plane form a second intersection line; the first plane and the second plane are perpendicular to each other and both pass through the central axis; the second intersection line does not coincide completely with the first intersection line after rotating 90° around the central axis (as shown in Fig. 6A-6C).
Irzyk and Rolland do not specifically disclose the imaging light is polarized.
However, Moon discloses the imaging light is polarized (See at least para 46), in order to steer incident light according to the polarization.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s effective filing date to include the imaging light is polarized.
Regarding Claim 17. Moon further discloses the image source comprises a first display capable of emitting polarized light; or the image source comprises a second display, a polarizer and a quarter-wave plate, and both the polarizer and the quarter-wave plate are arranged between the second display and the metasurface; light emitted from the second display hits the metasurface after passing through the polarizer and the quarter-wave plate in sequence (See para 46, or Fig. 8).
Claims 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irzyk and Rolland as applied to claim 18 in view of US 20200183161 A1 to Choi et al.
Regarding Claim 19. As stated above Irzyk and Rolland discloses all the limitations of base claim 18.
Irzyk and Rolland do not specifically disclose an anti-reflection film; and the anti-reflection film is provided on a side of the reflective imaging device away from the image generator.
However, Choi discloses an anti-reflection film; and the anti-reflection film is provided on a side of the reflective imaging device away from the image generator (See at least Fig. 10 anti-reflection coating layer 43 on polarized reflective mirror 4, which operates as a combiner in this system), in order to reduce a noise due to unwanted reflection light.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s effective filing date to include an anti-reflection film; and the anti-reflection film is provided on a side of the reflective imaging device away from the image generator.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDMOND C LAU whose telephone number is (571)272-5859. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-6pm EST.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571) 272-9791. 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.
/EDMOND C LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871