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 invention I (claims 1-11) in the reply filed on 10/06/2025 is acknowledged. Accordingly, claims 1-11 are considered for Examination.
Claims 12-20 (groups II and III) are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to non-elected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (US 2010/0097580 A1; Yamamoto).
As of claim 1, Yamamoto teaches a system [fig 1A] comprising: a frame 123, 124 (pair of temples) [fig 1A] [0192]; a projector 100 (image output unit) [fig 1A] [0194] coupled to the frame 123, 124 [fig 1A]; a reflector 104, 107 (deflection units) [fig 1A] [0193] coupled to the frame 123, 124 [fig 1A], wherein the reflector 104, 107 [fig 1A] includes a reflective surface (the deflection unit 104 deflects, toward the pupil of the user's eye, the beam scanned by the scan unit 103. The deflection unit 104 is designed so as to diffract, toward the user's eye, the beam scanned by the scan unit 103) [0209], the reflective surface 104, 107 [fig 1A] includes a first focal point and a second focal point (the deflection unit may be configured to simultaneously deflect, toward the first and second focal points) [0076], and the projector 103 (the scanner 103 is part of the projector 100 as shown in fig 1A) [fig 17] is located near the first focal point A [fig 17] of the reflective surface 104 [fig 17]; wherein the projector 103 [fig 17] includes a light emitting element 101 [fig 17] that is adapted to project light towards the reflector 104 [fig 17]; and wherein the reflector 104 [fig 17] is adapted to reflect the projected light off the reflective surface of the reflector 104 [fig 17] and project the light towards the second focal point B [fig 17] of the reflective surface 104 [fig 17].
Yamamoto teaches all the claimed limitations through prior art knowledge of through a variety of disclosed embodiments. It would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill that the various embodiments and known prior art could be combined without yielding unpredictable results. It has been held that “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results.” KSR., 127 S. Ct. at 1739, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 (2007) (Citing Graham, 383 U.S. at 12).
As of claim 2, Yamamoto teaches the frame 123, 124 [fig 1A] comprises an eyeglass frame (eyeglass-type HMD) [0191] configured for a user to wear [fig 1A] and the projector 100 [fig 1A] is oriented to at least project the light as a beam into an eye of the user wearing the eyeglass frame [fig 1A].
As of claim 3, Yamamoto teaches the projector 100 [fig 1A] is configured such that the beam of light (shown with dotted arrows) [fig 1A] is projected both towards and away from the eye of the user [fig 1A] wearing the eyeglass frame 123, 124 [fig 1A].
Claims 4-7, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (US 2010/0097580 A1; Yamamoto) in view of SAWADA et al. (US 2016/0139412 A1; SAWADA).
As of claims 4-6, Yamamoto teaches the invention as cited above except for the reflector comprises a partial mirror; a corrective lens coupled to the frame and the reflective surface comprises a partial mirror.
SAWADA teaches a display device [fig 1] having the reflector 130 [fig 1] comprises a partial mirror (reflector 130 is, for example, a mirror having a Fresnel structure having a refractive power) [0025]; a corrective lens 130 [fig 1] ((the shift of the optical path (the focal point) that occurs when providing the reflector with a Fresnel structure is corrected; and the aberrations can be suppressed)) [0090] coupled to the frame 320 [fig 1] and the reflective surface 130 [fig 1] comprises a partial mirror (reflector 130 is, for example, a mirror having a Fresnel structure having a refractive power) [0025].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the reflector comprises a partial mirror; a corrective lens coupled to the frame and the reflective surface comprises a partial mirror as taught by SAWADA to the system as disclosed by Yamamoto to provide a display that is easier to view (SAWADA; [0003]).
As of claim 7, Yamamoto teaches the invention as cited above except for the reflector comprises an adaptive reflector array to produce a real image exhibiting a true depth of field by selectively steering beams of light from the projector; and the projector is adapted to dynamically control a vergence of the beam of light impinging on the reflector.
SAWADA teaches the reflector 130 [fig 1] comprises an adaptive reflector array (the reflector 130 includes a first reflective surface 133a and a second reflective surface 133b. The second reflective surface 133b is arranged with the first reflective surface 133a on the arrangement surface 10 and is tilted with respect to the first reflective surface 133a. For example, the angle between the arrangement surface 10 and the first reflective surface 133a is smaller than the angle between the arrangement surface 10 and the second reflective surface 133b) [0040] to produce a real image exhibiting a true depth of field (on viewer’s eyes) [fig 1] by selectively steering beams (via 133a, 133b) [fig 3A] of light from the projector 110 [fig 1]; and the projector 110 [fig 1] is adapted to dynamically control a vergence of the beam of light impinging on the reflector (the display 110 [fig 1].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the reflector comprises an adaptive reflector array to produce a real image exhibiting a true depth of field by selectively steering beams of light from the projector; and the projector is adapted to dynamically control a vergence of the beam of light impinging on the reflector as taught by SAWADA to the system as disclosed by Yamamoto to provide a display that is easier to view (SAWADA; [0003]).
As of claim 9, Yamamoto teaches the invention as cited above except for the light is a light beam; the projector is adapted to: modify the light beam; project the modified light beam toward the reflector; and modify the light beam by one or more of (i) changing one or more directions of the beam of light, (ii) changing an intensity of the beam of light, (iii) changing a color of the beam of light, (iv) changing a polarization of the beam of light, and (v) changing a divergence of the beam of light.
SAWADA teaches the light is a light beam (shown with dotted lines in fig 1); the projector 110 [fig 1] is adapted to: modify the light beam (the multiple pixels 110e are arranged in a plane and emit light L0 [fig 1] including image information toward the optical unit 120) [0022]; project the modified light L0 [fig 1] beam toward the reflector 130 [fig 1]; and modify the light beam L0 [fig 1] by changing one or more directions of the beam of light ((reflector 130 is a multi-mirror array (MMA) including multiple reflective surfaces 133. For example, in the MMA, the multiple reflective surfaces 133 are arranged along an arrangement surface (e.g., a plane) 10. The arrangement surface 10 is disposed to oppose a viewer 80. Each of the multiple reflective surfaces 133 is tilted with respect to the arrangement surface 10) [0024].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the light is a light beam; the projector is adapted to: modify the light beam; project the modified light beam toward the reflector; and modify the light beam by one or more of (i) changing one or more directions of the beam of light, (ii) changing an intensity of the beam of light, (iii) changing a color of the beam of light, (iv) changing a polarization of the beam of light, and (v) changing a divergence of the beam of light as taught by SAWADA to the system as disclosed by Yamamoto to provide a display that is easier to view (SAWADA; [0003]).
Claims 8, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (US 2010/0097580 A1; Yamamoto) in view of Chaum et al. (US 2010/0149073 A1; Chaum).
As of claim 8, Yamamoto teaches the projector 100 [fig 1A] is a scanning projector having scanning units 103, 108 [fig 1A].
Yamamoto does not teach scanning projector comprising a multi-degree of freedom beam steering device.
Chaum teaches the projector 120 [fig 2] is a scanning projector (having pivotable mirrors 154 and 156) [fig 2] [0600] comprising a multi-degree of freedom beam steering device [0701].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the projector is a scanning projector comprising a multi-degree of freedom beam steering device as taught by Chaum to the system as disclosed by Yamamoto to direct light onto the proximal optic using different controls (degrees of freedom) (Chaum; [0701]).
As of claim 10, Yamamoto teaches the invention as cited above except for the frame includes attachments comprising: at least one power source; at least one communications module; and at least one speaker.
Chaum teaches frame 112 [fig 1] includes attachments 120 [fig 1] comprising: at least one power source [0353]; at least one communications module [0353]; and at least one speaker [0353].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the frame includes attachments comprising: at least one power source; at least one communications module; and at least one speaker as taught by Chaum to the system as disclosed by Yamamoto to direct light onto the proximal optic using different controls (degrees of freedom) (Chaum; [0701]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (US 2010/0097580 A1; Yamamoto) in view of Perez et al. (US 2013/0050432 A1; Perez).
Yamamoto teaches the invention as cited above except for a recorder to record video from at least one external camera affixed to distal surface of the reflector; and a sensor to sense motion of the frame using at least one motion sensor affixed to the frame.
Perez teaches a mixed reality display device [fig 1A] having a recorder 139 r, l [fig 1C] to record video from at least one external camera affixed to distal surface of the reflector 14 r, l (a detection area 139r, 139l of at least one sensor is aligned with the optical axis of its respective display optical system 14r, 14l so that the center of the detection area 139r, 139l is capturing light along the optical axis. If the display optical system 14 is aligned with the user's pupil, each detection area 139 of the respective sensor 134 is aligned with the user's pupil. Reflected light of the detection area 139 is transferred via one or more optical elements to the actual image sensor 134 of the camera); and a sensor 134 r, l (sensors) [fig 1C] to sense motion of the frame using at least one motion sensor affixed to the frame (positions of respective sets of gaze detection elements in a gaze detection system for each eye positioned facing each respective eye by the set of eyeglasses. In this example, the sensor 134r, 134l itself is in line or aligned with the optical axis at the center of its respective display optical system 14r, 14l but located on the frame 115 below the system 14. Additionally, in some embodiments, the camera 134 may be a depth camera or include a depth camera. In this example, there are two sets of illuminators 153 and photodetectors 152) [fig 1D] [0070].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a recorder to record video from at least one external camera affixed to distal surface of the reflector; and a sensor to sense motion of the frame using at least one motion sensor affixed to the frame as taught by Perez to the system as disclosed by Yamamoto to enhance the user experience of a user wearing a see-through, near-eye, augmented reality display device (Perez; [0002]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
- Prior Art Wu et al. (US 8878749 B1) teaches systems and methods for improving gaze estimation based on glints. An example method may be executable to receive glint-location data indicating a location for each of one or more glints that are reflected from an eye. The glint-location data may be captured by an imaging device that is attached to a head-mountable display (HMD). The method may be further executable to determine a plurality of normalized pupil locations comprising at least a first and a second normalized pupil location. Each normalized pupil location may be determined based on the glint-location data for a different combinatoric subset of the one or more glints. The method may be further executable to determine a regression model to fit the plurality of normalized pupil locations to an expected gaze location, and perform a gaze-tracking process based on the regression model;
- Prior Art Belenkii et al. (US 20170285343 A1) teaches a head worn display system with at least one retinal display unit having a curved reflector positioned in front of one eye or both eyes of a wearer. The unit includes a first set of three modulated visible-light lasers co-aligned and adapted to provide a foveal laser beam with selectable color and a first scanner unit providing both horizontal and vertical scanning of the laser beam across a small portion of the curved reflector in directions so as to produce a reflection of the color laser beam through the pupil of the eye onto a portion of the retina large enough to encompass the fovea. The unit also includes a second set three modulated retinal visible-light lasers plus an infrared laser, all lasers being co-aligned and adapted to provide a color and infrared peripheral view laser beam, and a second scanner unit providing both horizontal and vertical scanning of the visible light and infrared laser beams across a portion of the curved reflector in directions so as to produce a reflection of the scanned color and infrared laser beams through the pupil of the eye onto a portion of retina corresponding to a field of view of at least 30 degrees×30 degrees.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SULTAN U. CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)270-3336. The examiner can normally be reached on 5:30 AM-5:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Minh-Toan Ton can be reached on 571-272-2303. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SULTAN CHOWDHURY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882
Prosecution Insights