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 § 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) 1, 3-8, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20210141130 A1).
Re Claim 1, Lee discloses, on Fig. 16, A head mount device (HMD 1100) comprising: a housing (front body 1102) configured to fix a portable display device thereto (HMD can be configured to contain a mobile device) [Par 91]; and a light guidance unit (display system may include a waveguide as described in Lee’s prior embodiments such as Fig. 2a-2b) [Par 92], a sensor (depth camera DCA 1111 for capturing the environment) [Par 95 and 98] mounted on the portable display device (DCA 1111 is on front body 1102) so as to allow the sensor to sense at least a lower region below a line-of-sight direction of a user (“DCA 111 captures data describing depth information of a local area surrounding some or all of the HMD,” which would include lower than the user’s LOS) [Par 95] in a mounting state in which the portable display device is fixed to the housing, and the housing is mounted on the user (front body 1102 is attached to strap 1104 to secure to a user’s head) [Par 92].
But the embodiment of Fig. 16 of Lee does not explicitly disclose, a light guidance unit configured to change an angle of view of said sensor.
However, Lee does teach, on Fig. 2a-3b, a waveguide (waveguide 210 or 205), and the explicit control of the input and output FOV of said waveguide (input FOV 234 and output FOV 244, in order to control the overall FOV) [Par 59-65], as it’s delivered to another sensor (the human eye is a photosensor) [Par 63]. It would have been within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art to simply utilize a similar wave guide to Fig. 2a-3b (which is already present in the display system of Fig. 16) [Par 92], in combination with the DCA sensor and HMD of Fig. 16, such that the waveguide directs light to the DCA, in order to change an angle of view of the DCA sensor of Fig. 16, since Lee teaches both components and the ability to explicitly control the overall field of view of the waveguide [Par 59-65].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Lee, in order to control the overall FOV conveyed to the sensor [Par 63].
Re Claim 3, modified Lee discloses, the head mount device according to claim 1, and Lee further discloses on Fig. 2a-3b, wherein the light guidance unit (waveguide 210 and 205) guides, to the sensor (See Fig. 3B: output light 221 directed to the user’s eye) [Par 65], incident light incident on an incident port (incoupler 230) [Par 58], and Lee further discloses on Fig. 16, an incident port (DCA 1111 would be exposed to incident light) [Par 95] as provided in the housing [Par 95].
Re Claim 4, modified Lee discloses, the head mount device according to claim 1, and modified Lee further discloses on Fig. 2a-3b, wherein the light guidance unit (205 and 210) includes a total reflection surface (in coupler 230 achieves TIR) [Par 59] configured to guide incident light at least in a longitudinal direction (See Fig. 2a-3b where light travels in a longitudinal direction) so as to allow the incident light to be incident on the sensor (Fig. 3b: output to the user’s eye), and Fig. 16 of Lee discloses, wherein the incident light is incident on an incident port (DCA 1111 is exposed to incident light) provided at a substantially center in the longitudinal direction (Fig. 16: DCA 1111 is centered in a longitudinal direction).
But modified Lee does not explicitly disclose, wherein the incident port is located at a center of a display surface of the portable display device.
However, Lee teaches, on Fig. 11, the explicit control and optimization of the output grating 741 of the waveguide 710 relative to the eye box 747 [Par 76-77]. Since the eye box, by definition, is the region in which the user’s eye (effectively an incident port) must be placed to receive the reflected light, Lee also effectively teaches the positioning of the output grating 741 relative to an incident port. Thus, it would have been within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art to simply center the DCA 1111 (see Fig. 16) on the display surface of the display device in order to control the viewing geometry to avoid limiting the angular range of diffracted rays that could enter the eye box (effective incident port) [Par 77].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Lee, such that the incident port is located at a center of a display surface of the portable display device, in order to avoid limiting the angular range of diffracted rays 777 that could enter the eye box 747 [Par 77].
Re Claim 5, modified Lee discloses, the head mount device according to claim 1.
But modified Lee does not explicitly disclose, wherein the light guidance unit is configured to change an incident direction in the sensor to a direction lower than the line-of-sight direction of the user.
However, Lee does teach, on Fig. 2a-3b, a waveguide (waveguide 210 or 205), and the explicit control of the input and output FOV of said waveguide (input FOV 234 and output FOV 244, in order to control the overall FOV) [Par 59-65], as it’s delivered to the user’s eye [Par 63]. It would have been within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art to simply utilize a similar wave guide to Fig. 2a-3b (which is already present in the display system of Fig. 16) [Par 92], in combination with the DCA sensor and HMD of Fig. 16, such that it modified an incident direction in the sensor (DCA 1111) to a direction lower than the line-of-sight direction of the user, since Lee teaches both components and the ability to explicitly control the overall field of view of the waveguide [Par 59-65].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Lee, in order to control the overall FOV conveyed to the sensor [Par 63].
Re Claim 6, modified Lee discloses, the head mount device according to claim 1, and Lee further discloses on Fig. 1 and 2a-2b, wherein the light guidance unit (waveguide 205 and 210) is configured to guide light emitted from a light source (Fig. 1 shows a general embodiment with image light source 110) [Par 51] mounted on the portable display device (electronic display assembly) [Par 51].
But modified Lee does not explicitly disclose, wherein the light guidance unit is configured to guide to the lower region.
However, Lee does teach, on Fig. 2a-3b, a waveguide (waveguide 210 or 205), and the explicit control of the input and output FOV of said waveguide (input FOV 234 and output FOV 244, in order to control the overall FOV) [Par 59-65], as it’s delivered to the user’s eye [Par 63]. It would have been within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art to simply utilize a similar wave guide to Fig. 2a-3b (which is already present in the display system of Fig. 16) [Par 92], in combination with the DCA sensor and HMD of Fig. 16, such that it guides incident light to the lower region, since Lee teaches both components and the ability to explicitly control the overall field of view of the waveguide, and the output direction of the light guide [Par 59-65 and 77].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Lee, in order to control the overall FOV conveyed to the sensor [Par 63].
Re claim 7, modified Lee discloses, the head mount device according to claim 1.
But the previously cited embodiment of Lee does not explicitly disclose, further comprising a second light guidance unit configured to guide, to the lower region, irradiation light emitted from a light source mounted on the portable display device.
However, Lee discloses in another embodiment on Fig. 14, further comprising a second light guidance unit (Two units 921 and 922) configured to guide irradiation light (image light 901) [Par 88] emitted from a light source mounted on the portable display device (Fig. 1 shows a general embodiment with a mounted image source 110) [Par 52].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Lee, in order to provide a polychromatic FOV that is wider [Par 88].
But modified Lee (in view of the embodiment on Fig. 14 as well), does not explicitly, disclose, wherein the second light guidance unit is configured to guide to the lower region.
However, Lee does teach, on Fig. 2a-3b, a waveguide (waveguide 210 or 205), and the explicit control of the input and output FOV of said waveguide (input FOV 234 and output FOV 244, in order to control the overall FOV) [Par 59-65], as it’s delivered to the user’s eye [Par 63]. It would have been within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art to simply utilize a similar wave guide to Fig. 14 (which can be present in the display system of Fig. 16) [Par 92], in combination with the DCA sensor and HMD of Fig. 16, such that it guides incident light to the lower region, since Lee teaches both components and the ability to explicitly control the overall field of view of the waveguide, the output direction of the light guide [Par 59-65 and 77], and the control of the instance angles of multiple wavelength in a FOV (polychromatic FOV and corresponding angles) [Par 88].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Lee, in order to control the overall FOV conveyed to the sensor [Par 63].
Re Claim 8, modified Lee discloses, the head mount device according to claim 7.
But modified Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein, the light guidance unit and the second light guidance unit are arranged so as to prevent incident light incident on the sensor and the irradiation light from interfering with each other.
However, Lee does disclose on Fig. 14, wherein the light guidance unit (Fig. 14: waveguide 921) and the second light guidance (Waveguide 922) unit are arranged so to prevent incident light and the irradiation light from interfering with each other (color channel 901R, 901G, 901B, can be coupled seperately into waveguide 922 or 921 by the incouplers 931 and 932, thus propagating each waveguide separately)[Par 88], and Fig 16 of Lee discloses, wherein the light incident on the sensor (light incident on DCA 1111), and the irradiation light (light present in display system 1180 which would come from an image source and propagate a waveguide) [Par 92] do not interfere with each other (DCA 1111 and display system 1180 are separate optical systems).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Lee such that, that the irradiation light and the light incident on the sensor are prevented from interfering with each other by the light guidance unit and second light guidance unit, in order to provide support for a FOV that is wider [Par 88].
Re Claim 13, modified Lee discloses, the head mount device according to claim 1, and Lee further discloses on Fig. 16, wherein the portable display device (HMD 1100) detects an object around the user by correcting a detection signal output from the sensor depending on a change in the angle of view of the sensor (Laser radar or LIDAR function of DCA 1111) [Par 95-100].
But modified Lee does not explicitly disclose, wherein the sensing is dependent on a change in the angle of view of the light guidance unit.
However, Lee does teach, on Fig. 2a-3b, a waveguide (waveguide 210 or 205), and the explicit control of the input and output FOV of said waveguide (input FOV 234 and output FOV 244, in order to control the overall FOV) [Par 59-65], as it’s delivered to the user’s eye [Par 63]. It would have been within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art to simply utilize a similar wave guide to Fig. 2a-3b (which is already present in the display system of Fig. 16) [Par 92], in combination with the DCA sensor and HMD of Fig. 16, such that, the sensing is dependent on a change in the angle of view of the light guidance unit, since Lee teaches both components and the ability to explicitly control the overall field of view of the waveguide, and the output direction of the light guide [Par 59-65 and 77].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Lee, in order to control the overall FOV conveyed to the sensor [Par 63].
Re Claim 14, modified Lee discloses, the head mount device according to claim 1, and Lee further discloses on Fig. 16, wherein the portable display device (HMD 1100) detects an object around the user by correcting a detection signal output from the sensor depending on attenuation of incident light incident on the sensor (Laser radar or LIDAR function of DCA 1111) [Par 95-100].
But modified Lee does not explicitly disclose, wherein attenuation of incident light incident on the sensor by the light guidance unit.
However, Lee does teach, on Fig. 2a-3b, a waveguide (waveguide 210 or 205), and the explicit control of the input and output FOV of said waveguide (input FOV 234 and output FOV 244, in order to control the overall FOV) [Par 59-65], as it’s delivered to the user’s eye [Par 63]. It would have been within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art to simply utilize a similar wave guide to Fig. 2a-3b (which is already present in the display system of Fig. 16) [Par 92], in combination with the DCA sensor and HMD of Fig. 16, such that, there is attenuation of incident light incident on the sensor by the light guidance unit., since Lee teaches both components and the ability to explicitly control the overall field of view of the waveguide, and the output direction of the light guide [Par 59-65 and 77].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Lee, in order to control the overall FOV conveyed to the sensor [Par 63].
Re Claim 15, Lee discloses, on Fig. 16, a light guidance device (Fig. 16: display system may include a waveguide as described in Lee’s prior embodiments such as Fig. 2a-2b) [Par 92], a sensor (depth camera DCA 1111 for capturing the environment) [Par 95 and 98] mounted on a portable display device (DCA 1111 is on front body 1102) so as to allow the sensor to sense at least a lower region below a line-of-sight direction of a user (“DCA 111 captures data describing depth information of a local area surrounding some or all of the HMD,” which would include lower than the user’s LOS) [Par 95] in a mounting state in which the portable display device is fixed to the housing, and the housing is mounted on the user (front body 1102 is attached to strap 1104 to secure to a user’s head) [Par 92].
But the embodiment of Fig. 16 of Lee does not explicitly disclose, the light guidance device configured to change an angle of view of said sensor.
However, Lee does teach, on Fig. 2a-3b, a waveguide (waveguide 210 or 205), and the explicit control of the input and output FOV of said waveguide (input FOV 234 and output FOV 244, in order to control the overall FOV) [Par 59-65], as it’s delivered to another sensor (the human eye is a photosensor) [Par 63]. It would have been within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art to simply utilize a similar wave guide to Fig. 2a-3b (which is already present in the display system of Fig. 16) [Par 92], in combination with the DCA sensor and HMD of Fig. 16, such that the waveguide directs light to the DCA, in order to change an angle of view of the DCA sensor of Fig. 16, since Lee teaches both components and the ability to explicitly control the overall field of view of the waveguide [Par 59-65].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Lee, in order to control the overall FOV conveyed to the sensor [Par 63].
Claim(s) 2, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Wheelwright (US 10969675 B1).
Re Claim 2, modified Lee discloses, the head mount device according to claim 1.
But modified Lee does not explicitly disclose, wherein the light guidance unit includes a concave mirror configured to expand the angle of view so as to include the lower region.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Wheelwright teaches, on Fig. 4a, that it is desirable in head mounted displays to include, a concave mirror (first reflector 420) configured to expand the angle of view so as to include the lower region (Fig. 4a shows that incident light on reflector 420 from below the line of sight of eye 480 can be reflected to the eye)[Col 11, Lines 40-60].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Lee with Wheelwright in order to focus image light, as taught by Wheelwright [Col 12, Lines 40-50].
Re Claim 11, modified Lee discloses, the head mount device according to claim 7.
But modified Lee discloses, further comprising a third light guidance unit configured to guide, in the line-of-sight direction, at least one of incident light incident on the light guidance unit and the irradiation light emitted from the second light guidance unit.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Wheelwright teaches, on Fig. 4F, that it is desirable in head mounted displays, to include, a third light guidance unit (Guide 444) configured to guide, in the line-of-sight direction, at least one of incident light incident on the light guidance unit and the irradiation light emitted from the second light guidance unit (redirected components of irradiated image light 462) [Col 16, Lines 30-60].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Lee with Wheelwright, in order to redirect a portion of image light [Col 16, Lines 30-60].
Re Claim 12, Lee in view of Wheelwright discloses, the head mount device according to claim 11, and Wheelwright further discloses on Fig. 4F, a third light guidance unit (waveguide 444, 442, and 440) that has a refractive index greater than 1 (image light 462 would undergo total internal reflection inside waveguide 444, which requires a refractive index greater than that of the surrounding air, which would be n=1) [Col 16, Lines 60-65].
Claim(s) 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Kim (US 20210003852 A1).
Re Claim 9, modified Lee discloses, the head mount device according to claim 7, and Lee further discloses on Fig. 2a-3b, wherein the light guidance unit (waveguide 205 and 210) guides incident light to the sensor (light is guided to the photosensor, the user’s eye) [Par 55].
But modifie Lee does not disclose, wherein the second light guidance unit is configured to guide the irradiation light in a second guidance direction different from a first guidance direction.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches, on Fig. 9, that it is desirable in head mounted displays to include wherein, the second light guidance unit (Guide 212) is configured to guide the irradiation light in a second guidance direction (negative x direction) different from a first guidance direction (positive x direction of guide 213) [Par 115].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Lee with Kim, in order to provide partial overlap in a perpendicular direction, as taught by Kim [Par 115].
Re Claim 10, modified Lee discloses, the head mount device according to claim 7.
But modified Lee does not explicitly disclose, wherein the light guidance unit is disposed offset from the second light guidance unit in the line-of-sight direction.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches, on Fig. 9, that it is desirable for the light guidance unit to be disposed offset from the second light guidance unit in the line-of-sight direction (Fig. 9 shows guides 212 and 213 are offset in a light of sight direction)/
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Lee with Kim in order to provide partial overlap in a perpendicular direction, as taught by Kim [Par 115].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lansel (US 11048091 B1) teaches an HMD with a light guide.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAY ALEXANDER DEAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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.
/RAY ALEXANDER DEAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872