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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Priority
As required by M.P.E.P. 201.14(c), acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on the application filed on March 24th, 2022 (DE 10 2022 202 921.6). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statement dated March 19th, 2024 is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 30 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “a firs holographic layer” in line 2 should read “a first holographic layer and “a second holographic, layer, the” in line 3 should read “a second holographic layer, the”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 28 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 28, the limitation “smart glasses” is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. Specifically, it is unclear what exactly needs to be included in the glasses to qualify them as “smart”. Further, the limitation “a plane that is formed by a main plane of extension of a pair of smart glasses” is unclear and also renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what “a main plane of extension of a pair of smart glasses” means here especially given the vagueness of the term smart glasses. What is the extension here, a physical extension or a geometrical extension? Which part of the smart glasses does this correspond to? Accordingly, for the purpose of examining the claims currently pending, this limitation will be interpreted to mean “a plane”.
Regarding claim 29, this claim depends on a rejected base claim and is therefore rejected for at least the reasons stated supra.
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.
Claim(s) 19-21, 25-27, 30-32, and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2021/0124171 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Kim teaches an optical replication component which is developed in planar fashion and has a front side and a back side (See, e.g., the system shown in Fig. 5), the optical replication component comprising:
at least a first holographic optical element (See, e.g., holographic elements 131L and 131R in Fig. 5, corresponding to holographic element 131 in Fig. 3A);
a second holographic optical element (See, e.g., holographic elements 132L and 132R in Fig. 5, corresponding to holographic element 132 in Fig. 3A), the at least first holographic optical element and the second holographic optical element being configured to reflect an image content striking the front side of the optical replication component in such a way that at least a first exit pupil and a second exit pupil, which is spatially offset with respect to the first exit pupil, are produced with the image content (See, e.g., Fig. 3A which shows reflection off the cited holographic element creating three exit pupils f1-f3 spaced laterally); and
an additional optical filter element configured to filter at least a first light beam striking the back side of the optical replication component: (i) in a specific angle of incidence range, and/or (ii) in a specific wavelength range, and/or (iii) with a specific polarization direction (See, e.g., the combination of holographic elements 133L and 133R in Fig. 5, corresponding to v in Fig. 3A, and the lenses shown in Fig. 11 and note that the angle of incidence range is shown in Fig. 3A).
Regarding claim 20, Kim teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the first holographic optical element is configured to produce image data in the first exit pupil and the second holographic optical element is configured to produce the image data in the second exit pupil (See, e.g., Fig. 3A which shows this via the ray tracing).
Regarding claim 21, Kim teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the additionally optical filter element is a third holographic optical element, which is configured to reflect the incident first light beam at least partially (See, e.g., Fig 3A which shows this via the ray tracing, note the filter element has been cited as a holographic element above).
Regarding claim 25, Kim teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the optical filter element includes multiple holographic optical elements for reflecting first light beams in the specific angle of incidence range and in a red and/or blue and/or green wavelength range (See, e.g., Fig. 5 which shows two separate holographic optical elements 133L and 133R, Fig. 3A which shows the angle of incidence range, and note this is for showing an image to a user wearing the device in the visible spectrum so at least one of red/blue/green light is necessarily used).
Regarding claim 26, Kim teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the additional optical filter element is a wavelength-dependent light filter which is configured to absorb or to reflect the incident first light beam within the specific wavelength range (Note that all holographic elements such as this are at least somewhat wavelength-dependent insofar as they have transmission/absorption/reflection rates that vary based on wavelength, meaning this element necessarily absorbs or reflects some light in the specific wavelength range that this device uses to display images).
Regarding claim 27, Kim teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the wavelength-dependent light filter is an eyeglass lens (See, e.g., the rejection of claim 19 above which explains the cited filter includes the lens from Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 30, Kim teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the first holographic optical element is a firs holographic layer, and the second holographic optical element is a second holographic, layer (See, e.g., Figs. 3A and 5 which shows this), the first and the second layer being stacked one above the other (See, e.g., Figs. 3A and 5 which show this), and the first layer being situated first in a stack sequence, in a direction of an eye of the user (See, e.g., Figs. 3A and 5 which show this).
Regarding claim 31, Kim teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the first and second holographic optical element are developed as a common third layer including as a multiplexing holographic optical element (HOE) (See, e.g., Fig. 4 which shows this configuration and Fig. 3A which shows the light being multiplexed by the first two holographic layers as the exit pupils are located in the same plane/image).
Regarding claim 32, Kim teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the additional optical filter element is developed as an additional fourth layer, the additional fourth layer being situated relative to the first and second holographic element in a direction of the incident first light beam (See, e.g., Figs. 3A and 5 which shows this).
Regarding claim 34, Kim teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the fourth layer is situated on an outer surface of the second holographic optical element (See, e.g., Fig. 4 which shows this).
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.
Claim(s) 24 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2021/0124171 A1).
Regarding claim 24, Kim teaches the device set forth above but lacks an explicit disclosure wherein the third holographic optical element has a diffraction efficiency in a range from 20% to 95%.
However, the diffraction efficiency of the third holographic optical element corresponds to a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, in the instant case this efficiency directly impacts how much light passes the lens of the device and how much light from the light source reaches the user. Further, as a result-effective variable, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of such things involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In the instant case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the diffraction efficiency of the third holographic element to be with the claimed range for the purpose of optimizing the quality and amount of light coming from the light source and passing the lens, among other things.
Regarding claim 33, Kim teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the fourth layer is situated on the back side of the optical replication component (See, e.g., Figs. 3A and 5), but lacks an explicit disclosure wherein the back side is an outer surface of an eyeglass lens (Note that as cited above in the rejection of claim 19, this element has been taken to be the combination of the lens of Fig. 11 and holographic element 133). Further, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70 C.C.P.A. 1950). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to locate the holographic element 133 on the outer side of the lens shown in Fig. 11, for the purpose of having more control of the light that passes from the external scene through the lens, as the holographic element would interact with the light first (Note this would not meaningfully change the operation of the device because the light source would still provide light that is reflected into an exit pupil as shown in Fig. 3A).
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2021/0124171 A1) in view of Urness et al. (US 2020/0225476 A1).
Regarding claim 28, Kim teaches the device set forth above but lacks an explicit disclosure wherein the optical filter element is a polarization filter, the polarization filter being configured to suppress polarization component of the first light beam at least partially, the polarization component being oriented substantially along a vertical direction, which is oriented in vertically with respect to a plane that is formed by a main plane of extension of a pair of smart glasses.
However, in an analogous field of endeavor Urness teaches the use of a polarizer in an optical stack including two holographic elements (See, e.g., Fig. 11 and paragraphs [0137] and [0163] which explain this).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kim to include a polarizer as the optical filter, as taught by Urness, for the purpose of having more control over which light is allowed to pass the device and which light is blocked. (Note that this limitation is met in light of the 112 rejection above because the filter can be said to be oriented in a vertical direction at least in one of its height/thickness/width and a plane can be defined to correspond, and the language regarding the extension of a pair of smart glasses is not being considered due to its indefiniteness).
Claim(s) 35 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2021/0124171 A1) in view of Hollands et al. (US 2020/0174255 A1).
Regarding claim 35, Kim teaches an optical system for a virtual retinal display, comprising:
a. an image source which provides an image content in the form of image data (See, e.g., light source 101L in Fig. 5)
b. an image processing device configured to process the image data (See, e.g., spatial light modulator 102L in Fig. 5);
c. a projector unit having a time-modulated light source configured to generate at least one second light beam (See, e.g., the combination of light source 101R and spatial light modulator 102R in Fig. 5)
d. an optical replication component developed in planar fashion and having a front side and a back side (See, e.g., the system shown in Fig. 5), the optical replication component including:
at least a first holographic optical element (See, e.g., holographic elements 131L and 131R in Fig. 5, corresponding to holographic element 131 in Fig. 3A);
a second holographic optical element (See, e.g., holographic elements 132L and 132R in Fig. 5, corresponding to holographic element 132 in Fig. 3A), the at least first holographic optical element and the second holographic optical element being configured to reflect an image content striking the front side of the optical replication component in such a way that at least a first exit pupil and a second exit pupil, which is spatially offset with respect to the first exit pupil, are produced with the image content (See, e.g., Fig. 3A which shows reflection off the cited holographic element creating three exit pupils f1-f3 spaced laterally); and
an additional optical filter element configured to filter at least a first light beam striking the back side of the optical replication component: (i) in a specific angle of incidence range, and/or (ii) in a specific wavelength range, and/or (iii) with a specific polarization direction (See, e.g., the combination of holographic elements 133L and 133R in Fig. 5, corresponding to v in Fig. 3A, and the lenses shown in Fig. 11 and note that the angle of incidence range is shown in Fig. 3A).
Kim lacks an explicit disclosure of a controllable deflection device for the at least one light beam for a scanning projection of the image content.
However, in an analogous field of endeavor Hollands teaches a projector unit having a controllable deflection device for the at least one light beam for a scanning projection of the image content (See, e.g., the configuration of Fig. 2 and paragraph [0040] which explains the scanner element).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kim to include a scanner element as taught by Hollands, for the purpose of giving the eyeglasses the ability to have each lens perform a different operation if needed (Note that having one lens be only holographic elements and one lens having a scanner element, the device would necessarily have more modes of operation, i.e. utility).
Regarding claim 36, Kim teaches smart glasses, comprising:
an optical system for a virtual retinal display, including:
a. an image source which provides an image content in the form of image data (See, e.g., light source 101L in Fig. 5)
b. an image processing device configured to process the image data (See, e.g., spatial light modulator 102L in Fig. 5);
c. a projector unit having a time-modulated light source configured to generate at least one second light beam (See, e.g., the combination of light source 101R and spatial light modulator 102R in Fig. 5)
d. an optical replication component developed in planar fashion and having a front side and a back side (See, e.g., the system shown in Fig. 5), the optical replication component including:
at least a first holographic optical element (See, e.g., holographic elements 131L and 131R in Fig. 5, corresponding to holographic element 131 in Fig. 3A);
a second holographic optical element (See, e.g., holographic elements 132L and 132R in Fig. 5, corresponding to holographic element 132 in Fig. 3A), the at least first holographic optical element and the second holographic optical element being configured to reflect an image content striking the front side of the optical replication component in such a way that at least a first exit pupil and a second exit pupil, which is spatially offset with respect to the first exit pupil, are produced with the image content (See, e.g., Fig. 3A which shows reflection off the cited holographic element creating three exit pupils f1-f3 spaced laterally); and
an additional optical filter element configured to filter at least a first light beam striking the back side of the optical replication component: (i) in a specific angle of incidence range, and/or (ii) in a specific wavelength range, and/or (iii) with a specific polarization direction (See, e.g., the combination of holographic elements 133L and 133R in Fig. 5, corresponding to v in Fig. 3A, and the lenses shown in Fig. 11 and note that the angle of incidence range is shown in Fig. 3A).
Kim lacks an explicit disclosure of a controllable deflection device for the at least one light beam for a scanning projection of the image content.
However, in an analogous field of endeavor Hollands teaches a projector unit having a controllable deflection device for the at least one light beam for a scanning projection of the image content (See, e.g., the configuration of Fig. 2 and paragraph [0040] which explains the scanner element).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kim to include a scanner element as taught by Hollands, for the purpose of giving the eyeglasses the ability to have each lens perform a different operation if needed (Note that having one lens be only holographic elements and one lens having a scanner element, the device would necessarily have more modes of operation, i.e. utility).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22 and 23 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.
The following is an examiner’s reasons for indicated allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 22, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach wherein the first holographic optical element includes first holographic lattice planes having a first lattice vector, the second holographic optical element includes second holographic lattice planes having a second lattice vector, the third holographic optical element includes third holographic lattice planes having a third lattice vector, the third lattice vector corresponding to a mirroring of a fifth lattice vector combining the first and the second lattice vector as a mean of a sum of the first and the second lattice vector, at a mirror plane, the mirror plane being oriented substantially perpendicularly with respect to a line connecting a point of incidence of the incident first light beam on the third holographic optical element with a center point between the first and the second exit pupil.
Regarding claim 23, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach wherein the first holographic optical element includes first holographic lattice planes having a first lattice vector, the third holographic optical element includes fourth holographic lattice planes having a fourth lattice vector, a first straight line, which runs parallel to the first lattice vector, and a fourth straight line, which runs parallel to the fourth lattice vector, being situated relative to each other at an angular offset in a range from 10° to 30°, and the fourth lattice vector has a local magnitude, in a range from 0.0395 1/nm to 0.0427 1/nm, or from 0.0343 1/nm to 0.0368 1/nm, or from 0.0275 1/nm to 0.0302 1/nm.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mitchell Oestreich whose telephone number is (571)270-7559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-11:00 MT.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at 571-272-2713. 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.
/MITCHELL T OESTREICH/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872