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.
Claims 4-5 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.
Specifically, in claim 4, at line 2, the phrase “meta-structures” is unclear because it is not clear what is included in the structure of a meta-structure reflector, and therefore, it is unclear what is intended to be claimed by the phrase. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is rejected based on its dependence from claim 4.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8, 14-15, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mertz (US 5,995,071).
Regarding claim 1, Mertz discloses a near-eye display system (Figs. 2-7) comprising: a reflective liquid crystal display (LCD) panel configured to generate a display image (20; Column 3, Lines 14-21); display optics configure to project the display image to a user (11; Column 2, Line 61 to Column 3, Line 13); and one or more light sources positioned on a same side of the reflective LCD panel as the display optics and configured to illuminate the reflective LCD panel to generate the display image (25; Column 3, Lines 14-21).
Regarding claim 2, Mertz further discloses wherein the reflective LCD panel comprises: a first substrate (37; Column 3, Lines 22-42); pixel drive circuits formed on the first substrate (Column 3, Lines 22-42); one or more reflectors on the pixel drive circuits (38 & 47; Column 3, Lines 22-42); a second substrate transparent to visible light (33; Column 3, Lines 22-42—note that an LCD screen is considered to characteristically include a transparent substrate); and a liquid crystal material layer between the second substrate and the one or more reflectors (Column 3, Lines 22-42).
Regarding claim 3, Mertz further discloses wherein the one or more reflectors are configured to reflect incident light from the one or more light sources towards the display optics at angles within an acceptance cone of the display optics of the near-eye display system (38 & 47; Column 3, Line 43 to Column 4, Line 32).
Regarding claim 4, Mertz further discloses wherein the one or more reflectors include specular metal reflectors or diffractive reflectors (Column 3, Lines 43-65).
Regarding claim 5, Mertz further discloses wherein the specular metal reflectors are used as pixel electrodes of pixels of the reflective LCD panel (Column 3, Lines 22-42).
Regarding claim 6, Mertz further discloses wherein the one or more reflectors include a plurality of reflectors having different tilt angles with respect to the first substrate (Column 3, Line 43 to Column 5, Line 26).
Regarding claim 7, Mertz further discloses wherein the plurality of reflectors are configured to reflect incident light from the one or more light sources towards the display optics at angles aligned with chief ray angles of pixels of the reflective LCD panel (Column 3, Line 43 to Column 5, Line 26).
Regarding claim 8, Mertz further discloses wherein the reflective LCD panel further comprises a planarization layer on the one or more reflectors (33; Column 3, Lines 22-42).
Regarding claim 14, Mertz further discloses wherein the one or more light sources are positioned at peripheral regions of the near-eye display system to illuminate the reflective LCD panel at oblique angles such that light reflected by a front surface of the reflective LCD panel is not collected and projected to the user by the display optics (Fig. 7, 254 & 255 & 256; Column 5, Lines 27-64).
Regarding claim 15, Mertz further discloses wherein the one or more light sources include a plurality of light sources configured to be switched on or off to generate a light pattern for illuminating the reflective LCD panel (Fig. 7, 254 & 255 & 256; Column 5, Lines 27-64).
Regarding claim 17, Mertz further discloses wherein the near-eye display system includes a virtual reality headset (Column 1, Lines 11-46; Column 2, Lines 16-38).
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.
Claim(s) 12 and 18-19 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mertz (US 5,995,071).
Regarding claim 12, Mertz teaches the invention of claim 2, including pixels with circuitry (Column 3, Lines 22-42), but is silent as to thin film transistors. However, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention would have reasonably contemplated having the driving circuitry for the display pixels include a thin film transistor since to make the device of Mertz circuitry would need to be provided and thin film transistors are known small scale switching circuits common in the art of display panels. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the pixel circuitry of Mertz be modified to have thin film transistors since thin film transistors are known small scale switching circuits common in the art of display panels in order to manufacture the device of Mertz.
Regarding claims 18-19, Mertz teaches the invention of claim 1, including wherein the reflective LCD panel is a near-eye display system (Column 1, Lines 11-46; Column 2, Lines 16-38), but is silent as to the resolution of the display. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably contemplated at the time of filing having the LCD display have a resolution greater than 2000 pixels per inch in order to maximize the fineness of the image displayed to the user since the display is small and very close to the user’s eye such that text is readable to a user and since a screen resolution would have to be selected to manufacture the device of Mertz. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Mertz to have the reflective LCD display have a resolution greater than 2000 pixels per inch in order to maximize the fineness of the image displayed to the user such that text is readable since the display is small and very close to the user’s eye and in order to manufacture the device of Mertz.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-11, 13, 16, and 20 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.
Specifically, regarding claim 9, the prior art of record neither teaches nor suggests the limitation wherein a color filter layer between the one or more reflectors and the second substrate.
Specifically, regarding claim 10, the prior art of record neither teaches nor suggests the limitation wherein the first substate and the second substrate are curved.
Specifically, regarding claim 11, the prior art of record neither teaches nor suggests the limitation wherein the one or more reflectors form a concave-shaped reflective surface configured to collimate or concentrate incident light.
Specifically, regarding claim 13, the prior art of record neither teaches nor suggests the limitation wherein the first substrate includes a semiconductor substrate; and the pixel drive circuits include complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor (CMOS) circuits.
Specifically, regarding claim 16, the prior art of record neither teaches nor suggests the limitation wherein a light pattern generator between the one or more light sources and the reflective LCD panel, the light pattern generator configured to convert light from the one or more light sources into a light pattern for illuminating the reflective LCD panel.
Specifically, regarding claim 20, the prior art of record neither teaches nor suggests the limitation wherein a ratio between an active pixel area and a total pixel area of each pixel of pixels of the reflective LCD panel is greater than 80%.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNE M HINES whose telephone number is (571)272-2285. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 8:00-4:30.
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, James Greece, can be reached on 571-272-3711. 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.
/Anne M Hines/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2879