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 .
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 4, 2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) filed on August 4, 2026 have/has been acknowledged and considered by the examiner. Initialed copies of supplied IDS(s) forms are included in this correspondence.
Response to Amendment
Regarding Applicant’s remarks as they pertain to the drawings failing to show the subject matter of claims 35, 42, Examiner is not persuaded.
Applicant makes reference to element (1155), however in the drawings filed January 21, 2026 there is no element (1155). There is element (1150). While element (1150) is a polarizer as discussed in Applicant’s response, claim 35, which depends upon claim 21, and claim 42 which depends on claim 39, are drawn to the embodiments of Figures 17 and 18. It appears claims 35, 42 are not fully supported by Applicant’s originally filed specification.
Regarding Applicant’s remarks as they pertain to the drawings failing to show the subject matter of claim 43, Examiner is not persuaded.
Applicant makes reference to this being shown in Figure 20B, and states that the lower surface of stack (2005) is now considered the “output element”, however this is not supported or consistent with Applicant’s originally filed specification. Claim 43, which depends on claim 39 is not supported by Figure 20B and therefore appears to constitute prohibited new matter.
Regarding Applicant’s remarks as they pertain to the drawings failing to show the subject matter of claim 44, while such features are shown in Figure 20B, claim 44 is dependent upon claim 39 which is drawn to the embodiments of Figures 17, 18. Applicant’s originally filed specification does not appear to provide support for polarizer (1150) between the SLM (1140) and optics (1130) of Figures 17, 18.
USC 103 Rejection, claim 1 as obvious over Freeman and Roest
As best as Examiner understands, Applicant does not considered the Freeman/Roest to render claim 1 obvious because of the teachings of Freeman providing an angle-mapped display engine. Applicant suggests that Freeman’s purpose is to inject rays directly into the substrate without an ocular lens and without forming an image plane. While Examiner does not necessarily dispute such assertions, such assertions do not appear germane to the combination.
Applicant proposed that the combination relies on “if one were to insert Roest’s LCOS display into Freeman, Freeman would not longer be capable of launching angle-mapped rays…”1. The combination of Freeman and Roest does not rely on the bodily incorporation of a LCOS to replace the 326.
Examiner reminds Applicant that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references (MPEP 2145.III). Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
The combination is merely to show that pixelated displays are well known in the art and thus providing a pixelated spatial light modulator scanner would be obvious as set forth by the combination of Freeman and Roest.
While Applicant suggests “substituting Roest’s LCOS display into Freeman fundamentally destroys Freeman’s intended purpose…”2, Freeman actually states the opposite:
Although a scanned beam display engine is described in detail above, other display engine technologies such as LCD, LCOS, mirror arrays, CRT, etc. may be used in conjunction with an ocular lens as described above (Freeman para. [0123]).
In summary, the combination of Freeman and Roest does not destroy the intended purpose of Freeman. If Freeman employes a pixelated scanner, or even an LCOS, the device still operates as head-up display by Freeman’s own admission.
USC 102 Rejection of claims 21 and 39 as anticipated by Kasai
Applicant’s amendments have not resolved the issues. Specifically, Kasai’s SLM (3) reflects the light to a second side (e.g. left or rear) of output element (r13). As shown in Kasai Figure 12, the reflected light traveling toward a second side of (r13) impinges on waveguide (1) on the surface (r6).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
1) Figure 11C filed January 21, 2026 has element (1150), however the specification states Figure 11C includes element (1155).
2) The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the:
“a polarizer disposed along a first optical path between the first location and the pixelated spatial light modulator and along a second optical path between the pixelated spatial light modulator and the second location” (claim 35) - i.e. polarizer (1150) in not along the path between the first location (1730, 1730b) and the SLM (1140) in Figs. 17, 18.
“after the light is transmitted from the output element, before the light is transmitted through the optics, and before the light is reflected by the pixelated spatial light modulator, transmitting light through a polarizer” (claim 42) - i.e. there is no polarizer between (1730, 1730b) and (1130) in Figs. 17-18.
“after the light is transmitted from the output element, after the light is transmitted through the optics, and before the light is reflected by the pixelated spatial light modulator, transmitting the light through a polarizer” (claim 43) - i.e. there is no polarizer between optics (1130) and SLM (1140) in Figs. 17, 18.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 35, 42, 43, 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to claim 35, base claim 21 recites “an optical element configured to receive the light…along a first direction…the optical element comprises an output element disposed at a first location…and output the light through the optics along a second direction…” and then claim 35 recites “a polarizer along a first optical path between the first location and the pixelated spatial light modulator and along a second optical path between the pixelated spatial light modulator and the second location” which appears to be prohibited new matter.
Claim 21 is directed to the embodiments of Figures 17 and 18 and the subject matter of claim 35 is directed to placing a polarizer (e.g. 1150, 1155) as shown in Figure 11C, however Applicant’s originally filed specification does not provide support for the polarizer (1150) in Figures 17, 18 to extend as shown in Figure 11C.
As to claim 42, base claim 39 recites “transmitting light from the output element…through optics having an optical power…and toward a pixelated spatial light modulator…reflecting the light from the pixelated spatial light modulator” and then claim 42 recites “after the light is transmitted from the output element, before the light is transmitted through the optics, and before the light is reflected by the pixelated spatial light modulator, transmitting light through a polarizer” which appears to be prohibited new matter.
Claim 39 is directed to the embodiments of Figures 17 and 18 and the subject matter of claim 42 is directed to placing a polarizer (e.g. 1150, 1155) as shown in Figure 11C, however Applicant’s originally filed specification does not provide support for the polarizer (1150) in Figures 17, 18 to extend as shown in Figure 11C.
As to claim 43, base claim 39 recites “transmitting light from the output element…through optics having an optical power…and toward a pixelated spatial light modulator…reflecting the light from the pixelated spatial light modulator” and then claim 43 recites “after the light is transmitted from the output element, after the light is transmitted through the optics, and before the light is reflected by the pixelated spatial light modulator, transmitting the light through a polarizer” which appears to be prohibited new matter.
Claim 39 is directed to the embodiments of Figures 17 and 18 and the subject matter of claim 43 is directed to placing a polarizer (1150) between SLM (1140) and optics (1130) as shown in Figure 20B. Applicant’s originally filed specification does not provide support for including an additional polarizer (1150) between the SLM and optics of the embodiments of Figures 17 and 18.
As to claim 44, base claim 39 recites “transmitting light from the output element…through optics having an optical power…and toward a pixelated spatial light modulator…reflecting the light from the pixelated spatial light modulator” and then claim 44 recites “after the light is reflected by the pixelated spatial light modulator and before the light is transmitted through the optics, transmitting the light through a polarizer” which appears to be prohibited new matter.
Claim 39 is directed to the embodiments of Figures 17 and 18 and the subject matter of claim 44 is directed to placing a polarizer (1150) between SLM (1140) and optics (1130) as shown in Figure 20B. Applicant’s originally filed specification does not provide support for including an additional polarizer (1150) between the SLM and optics of the embodiments of Figures 17 and 18.
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 23 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.
As to claim 23, the claim recites “a first x-axis value…a second x-axis value greater than the first x-axis value” which is a relative/subjective term (MPEP 2173.05(b)). Specifically, the coordinate system is entirely arbitrary, thus what x-axis value is greater than another x-axis value is arbitrary. Examiner will understand the art such that so long as the first and second locations are different such features are necessarily true.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 21, 23-24, 26, 28, 30-32, 34, 38-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Kasai et al. (JP 2001-264682; of record; herein Kasai).
As to claim 21, Kasai teaches a display system (Kasai Fig. 12) comprising at least one light source configured to output light (Kasai Fig. 12 - 6);
a pixelated spatial light modulator (Kasai Fig. 12 - reflection type liquid crystal display (3));
optics having optical power (Kasai Fig. 12 - condenser lens (5));
an optical element configured to receive the light from the at least one light source along a first direction (Kasai Fig. 12 - light guide/prism (1) receiving light (La) from LED (6) along illumination direction);
wherein the optical element comprises an output element (Kasai Fig. 12 - r13) disposed at a first location in an X-Z plane and configured receive the light from the at least one light source on a first side of the output element (Kasai Fig. 12 - light (La) received at a front side of output element (r13)) and output the light through the optics along a second direction different from the first direction (Kasai Fig. 12 - output reflector (r13) outputs light to optics (5));
wherein the pixelated spatial light modulator is configured to receive the light from the optics (Kasai Fig. 12 - 5, 3) and reflect the light toward a second location in the X-Z plane located on a second side of the output element (Kasai Fig. 12 - light reflected from (3) is toward a left/rear side of (r13) and arrived at (r14, r6)), wherein the second location is different from the first location (Kasai Fig. 12 - light reflected from (3) toward (r14, r6) which is different from (r13)) and wherein light that impinges on the pixelated spatial light modulator after passing through the optics is reflected by the pixelated spatial light modulator in a third direction non-parallel with the second direction (Kasai Fig. 12 - L, 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
585
687
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 23 (as understood), Kasai teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 21, and Kasai further teaches the first location has a first ax-axis value and the second location has a second x-axis value greater than the first x-axis value (Kasai Fig. 12 - r13, r14/r6).
As to claim 24, Kasai teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 21, and Kasai further teaches the optics having the optical power are disposed between the optical element and the pixelated spatial light modulator (Kasai Fig. 12 - 1, 5, 3).
As to claim 26, Kasai teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 24, and Kasai further teaches the optics has a first side configured to receive light from the output element (Kasai Fig. 12 - 5), and a second side, opposite the firs side and configured to transmit the light to the pixelated spatial light modulator (Kasai Fig. 12 - 5, 3).
As to claim 28, Kasai teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 24, and Kasai further teaches at least one waveguide disposed to receive the light reflected from the pixelated spatial light modulator after the light reflected from the pixelated spatial light modulator passes through the optics (Kasai Fig. 12 - 1).
As to claim 30, Kasai teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 21, and Kasai further teaches all of the light that impinges on the pixelated spatial light modulator after passing through the optics is reflected by the pixelated spatial light modulator in the third direction (Kasai Fig. 12 - L).
As to claim 31, Kasai teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 21, and Kasai further teaches the optics comprises a first portion that receives light along the second direction (Kasai Fig. 12 - 5), and a second portion that outputs the light reflected by the pixelated spatial light modulator (Kasai Fig. 12 - 5, 3).
As to claim 32, Kasai teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 21, and Kasai further teaches the optical element further comprises an input element that receives the light from the at least one light source (Kasai Fig. 2 - r14).
As to claim 34, Kasai teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 21, and Kasai further teaches the optical element comprises a waveguide (Kasai Fig. 12 - 1).
As to claim 36, Kasai teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 21, and Kasai further teaches the output element comprises a reflector that is not a beam splitter (Kasai Fig. 12 - r13).
As to claim 38, Kasai teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 21, and Kasai further teaches at least one light distributing element configured to receive the light reflected from the pixelated spatial light modulator and emit the light reflected from the pixelated spatial light modulator toward an eye of a user (Kasai Fig. 12 - r3, 2).
As to claim 39, Kasai teaches a method (Kasai Fig. 12) comprising transmitting light from at least one light source to an optical element (Kasai Fig. 12 - 6, 1);
receiving, at a first side of an output element of the optical element (Kasai Fig 12 - light (La) received at front side of (r13)), the light along a first direction (Kasai Fig. 12 - light (La) along illumination direction), wherein the output element is disposed at a first location in an X-Z plane (Kasai Fig. 12 - r13);
transmitting light from the output element along a second direction different from the first direction through optics having an optical power (Kasai Fig. 12 - condenser lens (5)) and toward a pixelated spatial light modulator (Kasai Fig. 12 - r13, L, 3);
reflecting the light from the pixelated spatial light modulator toward a second location in the X-Z plane located on a second side of the output element (Kasai Fig. 12 - light reflected from (3) is toward a left/rear side of (r13) and arrived at (r14, r6)), different from the first location, in a third direction non-parallel with the second direction (Kasai Fig. 12 - L).
As to claim 40, Kasai teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 39, and Kasai further teaches after the light is transmitted from the output element and before the light is reflected by the pixelated spatial light modulator, transmitting the light through the optics (Kasai Fig. 12 - 5).
As to claim 41, Kasai teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 40, and Kasai further teaches transmitting the light through the optics after the light is reflected by the pixelated spatial light modulator (Kasai Fig. 12 - 5, 3, L).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 25, 27, 29, 33, 35, 37, 42, 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasai as applied to claims 21, 24, 32, 40 above, and further in view of Robbins et al. (US 2016/0077338 - Robbins; of record).
As to claim 25, Kasai teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 21, and Kasai further teaches comprising the optics having the optical power are disposed between the optical element and the pixelated spatial light modulator (Kasai Fig. 12 - 1, 5, 3).
Kasai does not specify a polarizer along an optical path of the light reflected by the SLM and between the optics and eye of the user.
In the same field of endeavor Robbins teaches a display with SLM (Robbins Fig. 3A - 230; para. [0041]), optics having optical power (Robbins Fig. 3A - 226; para. [0052]), a polarizer along an optical path of the light reflected by the SLM and between the optics and eye of the user (Robbins Fig. 3A - 289; para. [0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide such a polarizer since, as taught by Robbins, such polarizer allows for cleaning up polarization errors from the display (Robbins para. [0051]).
As to claim 27, Kasai teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 24, and Kasai further teaches the optics comprise a first side configured to receive light from the output element (Kasai Fig. 12 - 5).
Kasai doesn’t specify a polarizer disposed along the optical path of the light between the first side of the optics and the at least one light source.
In the same field of endeavor Robbins teaches display systems for HMDs with having an SLM (Robbins Fig. 3A - 230; Fig. 3C - 230) with light sources (Robbins Fig. 3A - 222; Fig. 3C - 222), optics (Robbins Fig. 3A - 226; Fig. 3C - 226, 250), and a polarizer (Robbins Fig. 3A - 224, 402) along the optical path between the light source/input (Robbins Fig. 3A - 222; Fig. 3C - 222, 401) and optics (Robbins Fig. 3A - 222, 224, 226; [0055]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide such elements since, as taught by Robbins, such polarizers are well known in the art for reflecting the intended polarization from the light source to the optics/display (Robbins Fig. 3A - 222, 224, 226; [0055]).
As to claim 29, Kasai teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 21, and Kasai further teaches the optics are disposed between the optical element and the pixelated spatial light modulator (Kasai Fig. 12 - 5, 3), the optics comprise a first side configured to receive light from the output element (Kasai Fig. 12 - 5, r8) and a second side opposite the first side and configured to transmit the light to the pixelated spatial light modulator (Kasai Fig. 12 - 5, r9), wherein the first side of the optics is closer to the optical element than the second side of the optics (Kasai Fig. 12 - r13, r8, r9).
Kasai doesn’t specify a polarizer disposed along an optical path between the spatial light modulator and the optical element, wherein the light reflected by the spatial light modulator passes through the polarizer.
In the same field of endeavor Robbins teaches display systems for HMDs with having an SLM (Robbins Fig. 3A - 230; Fig. 3C - 230) with light sources (Robbins Fig. 3A - 222; Fig. 3C - 222), optical element (Robbins Fig. 3A - 222; Fig. 3C - 222, 401) and a polarizer (Robbins Fig. 3A - 224; Fig. 3C - 402) disposed along an optical path between the spatial light modulator and the optical element, wherein the light reflected by the spatial light modulator passes through the polarizer (Robbins Fig. 3A - 237).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide such elements since, as taught by Robbins, such polarizers are well known in the art for reflecting the intended polarization and passing the SLM polarization (Robbins Fig. 3A - 222, 224, 226; [0055]).
As to claim 33, Kasai teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 32, and Kasai further teaches the output element comprises a reflector (Kasai Fig. 12 - r13), but doesn’t specify the input element is also a reflector.
In the same field of endeavor Robbins HMD displays having input/output elements as reflectors (Robbins Fig. 3A - 224, 234). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide input/output reflectors since, as taught by Robbins, reflectors are well known in the art for the purpose of directing the light to the intended directions/elements (Robbins Fig. 3A - 224, 234).
As to claim 35, Kasai teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 21, but doesn’t specify a polarizer disposed along a first optical path between the first location and the pixelated spatial light modulator and a long a second optical path between the pixelated spatial light modulator and the second location.
In the same field of endeavor Robbins teaches HMDs displays having SLMs (Robbins Fig. 3A - 230; Fig. 3C - 230) and a polarizer disposed along a first optical path between a first location and the pixelated SLM (Robbins Fig. 3A - 224; para. [0055]) and a second optical path between the SLM and a second location (Robbins Fig. 3A - 224).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide such a polarizer since, as taught by Robbins, such polarizer allows for cleaning up polarization errors from the display (Robbins para. [0051]).
As to claim 37, Kasai teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 21, but doesn’t specify a polarizer along an optical path between the first location and an eye of a user, the light reflected by the SLM passes through the polarizer.
In the same field of endeavor Robbins teaches a display with SLM (Robbins Fig. 3A - 230; para. [0041]) a polarizer between the first location and an eye of the user and the light reflected by the SLM passing through the polarizer (Robbins Fig. 3A - 289; para. [0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide such a polarizer since, as taught by Robbins, such polarizer allows for cleaning up polarization errors from the display (Robbins para. [0051]).
As to claim 42, Kasai teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 40, but doesn’t specify after the light is transmitted from the output element, before the light is transmitted through the optics, and before the light is reflected by the pixelated spatial light modulator, transmitting the light through a polarizer.
In the same field of endeavor Robbins teaches HMD displays having an SLM (Robbins Fig. 3C - 230), optics (Robbins Fig. 3C - 250), transmitting light from an output element (Robbins Fig. 3C - 222, 401) and after the light is transmitted from the output element, before transmitted through the optics, and before reflected by the SLM, transmitting through a polarizer (Robbins Fig. 3C - 402; para. [0066]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide such polarizer since, as taught by Robbins, such beamsplitter are well known in the art for passing/reflecting polarization states to direct light along the various paths (Robbins Fig. 3C - 402; para. [0066]).
As to claim 45, Kasai teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 40, but doesn’t specify after light is reflected by the SLM and after the light is transmitted through the optics, transmitting the light through a polarizer.
In the same field of endeavor Robbins teaches a HMD having an SLM (Robbins Fig. 3A - 230), optics (Robbins Fig. 3A - 226), and after light reflected from the SLM, and transmitted through the optics, transmitting light through a polarizer (Robbins Fig. 3A - 289; para. [0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide such a polarizer since, as taught by Robbins, such polarizer allows for cleaning up polarization errors from the display (Robbins para. [0051]).
Claims 43, 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasai as applied to claim 40 above, and further in view of Freeman et al. (US 2007/0171329 - Freeman; of record).
As to claim 43, Kasai teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 40, but doesn’t specify after the light is transmitted from the output element, after the light is transmitted through the optics, and before the light is reflected by the pixelated SLM, transmitting the light through a polarizer.
In the same field of endeavor Freeman teaches displays for HMDs where after the light is transmitted from the output element (Freeman Fig. 3A), after the light is transmitted through the optics (Freeman Fig. 3A), and before the light is reflected by an SLM (Freeman Fig. 3B - 326), transmitting the light through a polarizer (Freeman Fig. 3A - 328; para. [0056]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide a polarizer between the optics and SLM since, as taught by Freeman, such polarizers allow for rotating polarization for light path directing (Freeman Fig. 3A - 328; para. [0056]).
As to claim 44, Kasai teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 40, but doesn’t specify after the light is reflected by the pixelated spatial light modulator and before the light is transmitted through the optics, transmitting the light through a polarizer.
In the same field of endeavor Freeman teaches displays for HMDs having an SLM (Freeman Fig. 3B - 326), and optics (Freeman Fig. 3A - 110; Fig. 3B - 322), after light reflected by the SLM, and before light is transmitted thorough the optics, transmitting the light through a polarizer (Freeman Fig. 3A - 328; para. [0056]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide a polarizer between the optics and SLM since, as taught by Freeman, such polarizers allow for rotating polarization for light path directing (Freeman Fig. 3A - 328; para. [0056]).
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-11, 13-14, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freeman (cited above) in view of Roest (US 2002/0167733; of record).
As to claim 1, Freeman teaches a display system comprising at least one light source configured to output light (Freeman Figs. 3A-B - 306, 308, 310);
a spatial light modulator (SLM) (Freeman Figs. 3A-B - 326; [0045]);
at least one waveguide comprising (Freeman Fig. 3B - 318) a first surface (Freeman Fig. 3B - bottom surface of (318); bottom surface of (102)), a second surface opposite the first surface (Freeman Fig. 3B - top surface of (318); top surface of (102)), a first edge and a second edge between the first surface and the second surface (Freeman Fig. 3B - edges of (318));
an output element disposed between the first surface and the second surface at a first location in an X-Z plane (Freeman Figs. 3A-B - left side reflecting end of (318)), wherein the at least one waveguide is configured to receive the light from the at least one light source (Freeman Fig. 3A-B - 318, 306, 308, 310), and the output element is configured to receive the light propagating in the at least one waveguide in a first direction (Freeman Fig. 3B - propagating left/right) and output the light along a second direction different from the first direction (Freeman Fig. 3B - output light down (second direction));
optics having optical power (Freeman Figs. 3A-B - 322, 110, 328, 304), wherein the optics are disposed between the at least one waveguide and the SLM (Freeman Figs. 3A-B - 322, 326);
wherein the SLM is configured to receive the light from the optics reflect the light along a third direction non-parallel with the second direction (Freeman Figs. 3A-B - third direction (up and angled) non-parallel second direction (down)) toward a second location in the X-Z plane that is different from the first location (Freeman Figs. 3A-B - SLM (326) reflects light toward second location (304/110) different from the first location (end of 318)), and wherein the SLM is disposed closer to the first surface than the second surface of the at least one waveguide (Freeman Figs. 3A-B - 326, 318), and wherein light that impinges on the SLM after passing through the optics is reflected by the SLM in the third direction (Freeman Figs. 3A - 326).
Freeman doesn’t specify the SLM (326) is a pixelated type SLM, however Freeman does provide including pixelated SLMs (Freeman para. [0123]).
In the same field of endeavor Roest teaches pixelated SLMs for HMD displays (Roest Fig. 1 - 6; Fig. 2 - 26; para. [0014], [0015]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide a pixelated SLM since, as taught by Roest, such pixelated displays are well known in the art for image generation in HMD display systems (Roest Fig. 1 - 6; Fig. 2 - 26; para. [0014], [0015]).
As to claim 2, Freeman in view of Roest teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Freeman further teaches the optics are disposed closer to the first surface than the second surface of the at least one waveguide (Freeman Fig. 3B - 322, 318).
As to claim 3, Freeman in view of Roest teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Freeman further teaches the at least one waveguide comprises a first input element disposed between the first surface and the second surface of the at least one waveguide (Freeman Fig. 3B - 318; para. [0048] - unlabeled internal reflectors between bottom (first) surface of (102, 318) and top (second) surface of (102, 318)).
As to claim 4, Freeman in view of Roest teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Freeman further teaches the at least one waveguide further comprises an input element coupled to the second surface of the at least one waveguide and opposite the at least one light source (Freeman Fig. 3B - 318; para. [0048] - unlabeled internal reflectors).
As to claim 6, Freeman in view of Roest teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 4, and Freeman further teaches the input element is a reflective in-coupling optical element disposed in the at least one waveguide (Freeman Fig. 3B - 318; para. [0048] - unlabeled internal reflectors).
As to claim 7, Freeman in view of Roest teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 3, and Freeman further teaches a second input element coupled to the second surface of the at least one waveguide (Freeman Fig. 3A - input element (110) coupled to top (second) surface of (102, 318)).
As to claim 8, Freeman in view of Roest teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 7, and Freeman further teaches the output element is disposed between the second input element and the first input element (Freeman Figs. 3A-B - output element (left reflector of 318) between second input element (110) and first input element (input reflectors of (318)).
As to claim 10, Freeman in view of Roest teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Freeman further teaches the at least one light source comprises a plurality of laterally displaced light emitters (Freeman Fig. 3B - 306, 308, 310), but doesn’t specify the light source is disposed closer to the first surface (bottom/posterior) than the second surface (top/anterior).
It would have been obvious to provide the light source closer to the first surface than the second surface since, since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of elements without modification of the operation of the device only involves routine skill in the art. In re Japikse 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Such rearrangement of light sources (306, 308, and/or 310) allow for compact layout design considerations of the system.
As to claim 11, Freeman in view of Roest teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 2, and Freeman further teaches a polarizer disposed along an optical path of the light reflected by the pixelated SLM between the optics and an eye of a user (Freeman Fig. 3A - 328; para. [0056]).
As to claim 13, Freeman in view of Roest teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 2, and Freeman further teaches a polarizer disposed along an optical path of the light from the at least one light source tht was reflected and transmitted through the optics (Freeman Fig. 3A - 328; para. [0056]).
As to claim 14, Freeman in view of Roest teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 2, and Freeman further teaches a polarizer disposed along an optical path of the light from the at least one light source that was reflected and transmitted between the optics and the pixelated SLM (Freeman Figs. 3A-B - 322, 328, 326).
As to claim 18, Freeman in view of Roest teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Freeman further teaches the output element is opaque and comprises at least one of a mirror, reflective grating, or one or more coatings (Freeman Fig. 3B - left reflective end of (318)).
As to claim 19, Freeman in view of Roest teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Freeman further teaches a polarizer disposed between the at least one light source and pixelated SLM (Freeman Fig. 3A - 328; para. [0056]).
As to claim 20, Freeman in view of Roest teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Freeman further teaches the light reflected from the pixelated SLM is projected into an eye of a user (Freeman Fig. 5- 114), wherein the eye is closer to the first surface than the second surface of the at least one waveguide (Freeman Fig. 5 - 114).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freeman and Roest as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Brown et al. (US 8,830,588 - Brown; of record).
As to claim 5, Freeman in view of Roest teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 4, but doesn’t specify a diffractive in-coupling optical element disposed on the second surface of the at least one waveguide.
In the same field of endeavor Brown teaches a display system having a waveguide and a diffractive in-coupling optical element on a second surface (Brown Fig. 2 - 42, 40; col. 4:26-38). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide a diffractive in-coupling since, as taught by Brown, such in-coupling is well known in the art for launching light from the light source(s) into a waveguide (Brown Fig. 2 - 42, 40; col. 4:26-38).
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-11, 13-14, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freeman (cited above) in view of Togino et al. (US 6,222,676 - Togino).
As to claim 1, Freeman teaches a display system comprising at least one light source configured to output light (Freeman Figs. 3A-B - 306, 308, 310);
a spatial light modulator (SLM) (Freeman Figs. 3A-B - 326; [0045]);
at least one waveguide comprising (Freeman Fig. 3B - 318) a first surface (Freeman Fig. 3B - bottom surface of (318); bottom surface of (102)), a second surface opposite the first surface (Freeman Fig. 3B - top surface of (318); top surface of (102)), a first edge and a second edge between the first surface and the second surface (Freeman Fig. 3B - edges of (318));
an output element disposed between the first surface and the second surface at a first location in an X-Z plane (Freeman Figs. 3A-B - left side reflecting end of (318)), wherein the at least one waveguide is configured to receive the light from the at least one light source (Freeman Fig. 3A-B - 318, 306, 308, 310), and the output element is configured to receive the light propagating in the at least one waveguide in a first direction (Freeman Fig. 3B - propagating left/right) and output the light along a second direction different from the first direction (Freeman Fig. 3B - output light down (second direction));
optics having optical power (Freeman Figs. 3A-B - 322, 110, 328, 304), wherein the optics are disposed between the at least one waveguide and the SLM (Freeman Figs. 3A-B - 322, 326);
wherein the SLM is configured to receive the light from the optics reflect the light along a third direction non-parallel with the second direction (Freeman Figs. 3A-B - third direction (up and angled) non-parallel second direction (down)) toward a second location in the X-Z plane that is different from the first location (Freeman Figs. 3A-B - SLM (326) reflects light toward second location (304/110) different from the first location (end of 318)), and wherein the SLM is disposed closer to the first surface than the second surface of the at least one waveguide (Freeman Figs. 3A-B - 326, 318), and wherein light that impinges on the SLM after passing through the optics is reflected by the SLM in the third direction (Freeman Figs. 3A - 326).
Freeman doesn’t specify the SLM (326) is a pixelated type SLM, however Freeman does provide including pixelated SLMs (Freeman para. [0123]) and the SLM can include MEMS (Freeman para. [0051])
In the same field of endeavor Togino teaches HUDs with micromirrors (MEMS) being pixelated (Togino Figs. 19a,b; col. 1:54-65). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide a pixelated MEMS SLM since, as taught by Togino, such devices are well known in the art for generating images (Togino Figs. 19a,b; col. 1:54-65).
As to claim 2, Freeman in view of Togino teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Freeman further teaches the optics are disposed closer to the first surface than the second surface of the at least one waveguide (Freeman Fig. 3B - 322, 318).
As to claim 3, Freeman in view of Togino teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Freeman further teaches the at least one waveguide comprises a first input element disposed between the first surface and the second surface of the at least one waveguide (Freeman Fig. 3B - 318; para. [0048] - unlabeled internal reflectors between bottom (first) surface of (102, 318) and top (second) surface of (102, 318)).
As to claim 4, Freeman in view of Togino teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Freeman further teaches the at least one waveguide further comprises an input element coupled to the second surface of the at least one waveguide and opposite the at least one light source (Freeman Fig. 3B - 318; para. [0048] - unlabeled internal reflectors).
As to claim 6, Freeman in view of Togino teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 4, and Freeman further teaches the input element is a reflective in-coupling optical element disposed in the at least one waveguide (Freeman Fig. 3B - 318; para. [0048] - unlabeled internal reflectors).
As to claim 7, Freeman in view of Togino teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 3, and Freeman further teaches a second input element coupled to the second surface of the at least one waveguide (Freeman Fig. 3A - input element (110) coupled to top (second) surface of (102, 318)).
As to claim 8, Freeman in view of Togino teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 7, and Freeman further teaches the output element is disposed between the second input element and the first input element (Freeman Figs. 3A-B - output element (left reflector of 318) between second input element (110) and first input element (input reflectors of (318)).
As to claim 10, Freeman in view of Togino teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Freeman further teaches the at least one light source comprises a plurality of laterally displaced light emitters (Freeman Fig. 3B - 306, 308, 310), but doesn’t specify the light source is disposed closer to the first surface (bottom/posterior) than the second surface (top/anterior).
It would have been obvious to provide the light source closer to the first surface than the second surface since, since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of elements without modification of the operation of the device only involves routine skill in the art. In re Japikse 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Such rearrangement of light sources (306, 308, and/or 310) allow for compact layout design considerations of the system.
As to claim 11, Freeman in view of Togino teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 2, and Freeman further teaches a polarizer disposed along an optical path of the light reflected by the pixelated SLM between the optics and an eye of a user (Freeman Fig. 3A - 328; para. [0056]).
As to claim 13, Freeman in view of Togino teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 2, and Freeman further teaches a polarizer disposed along an optical path of the light from the at least one light source tht was reflected and transmitted through the optics (Freeman Fig. 3A - 328; para. [0056]).
As to claim 14, Freeman in view of Togino teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 2, and Freeman further teaches a polarizer disposed along an optical path of the light from the at least one light source that was reflected and transmitted between the optics and the pixelated SLM (Freeman Figs. 3A-B - 322, 328, 326).
As to claim 18, Freeman in view of Togino teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Freeman further teaches the output element is opaque and comprises at least one of a mirror, reflective grating, or one or more coatings (Freeman Fig. 3B - left reflective end of (318)).
As to claim 19, Freeman in view of Togino teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Freeman further teaches a polarizer disposed between the at least one light source and pixelated SLM (Freeman Fig. 3A - 328; para. [0056]).
As to claim 20, Freeman in view of Togino teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Freeman further teaches the light reflected from the pixelated SLM is projected into an eye of a user (Freeman Fig. 5- 114), wherein the eye is closer to the first surface than the second surface of the at least one waveguide (Freeman Fig. 5 - 114).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freeman and Togino as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Brown et al. (US 8,830,588 - Brown; of record).
As to claim 5, Freeman in view of Togino teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 4, but doesn’t specify a diffractive in-coupling optical element disposed on the second surface of the at least one waveguide.
In the same field of endeavor Brown teaches a display system having a waveguide and a diffractive in-coupling optical element on a second surface (Brown Fig. 2 - 42, 40; col. 4:26-38). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide a diffractive in-coupling since, as taught by Brown, such in-coupling is well known in the art for launching light from the light source(s) into a waveguide (Brown Fig. 2 - 42, 40; col. 4:26-38).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY W WILKES whose telephone number is (571)270-7540. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 (Pacific).
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.
/ZACHARY W WILKES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 September 22, 2026
1 Remarks filed August 4, 2026; page 15
2 Remarks filed August 4, 2206; page 15
