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
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 6,710,902 to Takeyama.
In regards to claims 1, 21 and 22, Takeyama recites a head-mounted display/method (Figure 11) comprising an image display element (5) configured to emit light representative of an image; and an optics relay (4) configured to receive the light representative of the image and provide the light to a curved lightguide (Column 29, Lines 45-50) such that an intermediate image (intermediate image position) based on the image is formed in the curved lightguide, wherein the curved lightguide is configured to output light based on the intermediate image. Although Takeyama does not expressly recite the image display element to be a microdisplay, Takeyama teaches an image display element. Furthermore, the mere change in size of a component is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Forming components in a smaller size, such as a micro size would be advantageous in order to provide a more compact display device. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have formed the image display element as a microdisplay as an obvious matter of design choice. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237
In regards to claim 11, Takeyama recites a lightguide (Figure 11), comprising: an incoupler (6) including an optics relay (4) configured to relay light emitted from an image display element (5) representative of an image to a portion of the lightguide (3) such that an intermediate image (image (intermediate image position) based on the image is formed at a predetermined location in the portion of the lightguide; and a first and second non-planar major surface (Column 29, Lines 45-50) configured to reflect light received from the incoupler and provide the light to an optical output system (31 & 9) configured to output light (2) based on the intermediate image. Although Takeyama does not expressly recite the image display element to be a microdisplay, Takeyama teaches an image display element. Furthermore, the mere change in size of a component is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Forming components in a smaller size, such as a micro size would be advantageous in order to provide a more compact display device. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have formed the image display element as a microdisplay as an obvious matter of design choice. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237
In regards to claim 2, Takeyama recites an optical output system (31 & 9) configured to receive the light based on the intermediate image and direct the light based on the intermediate image towards a lens (9) of an optical combiner.
In regards to claims 3, 16 and 23, Takeyama recites the optical output system comprises a retroreflector (31) configured to receive the light based on the intermediate image and reflect the light based on the intermediate image back toward a portion of the curved lightguide.
In regards to claims 4-6, 13-15 and 24-26, Takeyama does not expressly recite the optical output system comprises a wedge-shaped outcoupler, the wedge shaped outcoupler includes a reflective optical coating disposed on a surface of the wedge-shaped outcoupler, wherein the optical output system comprises a partial mirror outcoupler configured to reflect the light based on the intermediate image towards the lens of the optical combiner. However, Takeyama teaches an input coupler (8) having a wedge shaped for the purpose of manipulating and directing light as desired by the device. Since Takeyama teaches wedge shaped couplers to manipulate light and further since the light manipulation requires a change in direction, a reflective optical coating to aid in the manipulation is a commonly chosen coating to provide a change in direction, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the optical output system comprises a wedge-shaped outcoupler, the wedge shaped outcoupler includes a reflective optical coating disposed on a surface of the wedge-shaped outcoupler. Furthermore, a partial mirror is a commonly known alternative to a reflective coating since both the partial mirror and reflective coating provides the same function, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have provided a partial mirror outcoupler configured to reflect the light based on the intermediate image towards the lens of the optical combiner.
In regards to claims 7, 12 and 27, Takeyama recites the optics relay is configured to magnify the image by a predetermined power to form the intermediate image.
In regards to claim 8, Takayama recites the curved lightguide includes one or more freeform surfaces.
In regards to claims 9, 10, 19, 20, 29 and 30, although Takeyama does not expressly recite an F-stop configured to filer at least a portion of the light representative of an image, wherein the intermediate image is based on the filtered at least a portion of the light representative of the image, the addition of an F-stop in a head-mounted display is commonly included to allow the desired amount of light through the physical opening for a closer or further focus of the image. Since it would be advantageous to control the desired amount of light, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have provided an F-stop configured to filer at least a portion of the light representative of an image, wherein the intermediate image is based on the filtered at least a portion of the light representative of the image.
In regards to claim 17, Takeyama recites the optical output system is included within the lightguide.
In regards to claim 18, Takeyama recites the incoupler includes one or more freeform surfaces.
In regards to claim 28, Takeyama recites the curved lightguide includes one or more freeform surfaces.
References Cited
The references cited made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
The documents submitted by applicant in the Information Disclosure Statements have been considered and made of record. Note attached copy of forms PTO-1449.
Inventorship
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TINA M WONG whose telephone number is (571)272-2352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at (571) 272-2397. 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.
/TINA WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights