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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 06/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that none of the cited references teaches the limitation as presented in claim 11. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Robbins (figures 1-2) discloses an augmented reality display apparatus as claimed including an optical waveguide (114-120) comprising a plurality of modulation portions and a total reflection portion (102-104), each of the plurality of modulation portions being configured to receive and reflect the image light (figure 1), wherein the reflecting layer is configured for reflecting the image light, the total reflection portion is configured for total reflecting the image light from the reflecting layer, the optical waveguide is configured to receive and guide the image light from the total reflection portion to project images on an eye human eye (The waveguide 102 includes a polarizing beam splitter 116 or other type of optical filter to reflect the light that enters at a first polarization orientation angle so that the light propagates down the waveguide; see at least paragraph 0018). The examiner merely relies on Scheller et al. (figures 5A-5B) for the teaching of the modulation portion may be a mirror, semi-mirrored surface, holographic reflector, deformable mirror, deformable mirror, or diffractive grating (see at least paragraph 0046). Therefore, 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 modulation portions as taught by Scheller et al. in order to increase sensing accuracy while reducing the complexity of hardware and software architectures. In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use deformable mirrors since it was known in the art that deformable mirrors are commonly used as modulation portions.
In addition, Lin et al. (figures 1-3) teaches a control device electrically connected to the piezoelectric ceramic of each of the plurality of modulation portions and configured to provide a power voltage to layer of piezoelectric ceramic of each of the plurality of modulation portions (The electrode for the control device is electrically connected with the external adjustable voltage, through the side surface electrode of the piezoelectric material adding voltage, caused by deformation of the piezoelectric material; see at least abstract); wherein the control device controls a deformation degree of the layer of piezoelectric ceramic of each of the plurality of modulation portions by adjusting a value of the power voltage provided to the layer of piezoelectric ceramic of each of the plurality of modulation portions, and the control device is further configured to control a direction of the image light by controlling value of the power voltage (6-7; the blazed grating base wherein the invention made of piezoelectric material with 3 axis directions 1, 2, 3, can be voltage, material on the shaft 3 along the axial direction 1 to be deformed. the polarization direction of the incident light beams 4 6 the direction of a diffracted light beam 5 associated with the grating constant 9; see at least page 4, second paragraph). Therefore, 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 modulation portions as taught by Scheller et al. in order to achieve optical filter capable of controlling diffraction efficiency reflection grating blazed angle adjustable voltage.
Since Robbins (figures 1-2) discloses modulation portions facing the display device and Lin et al. (figures 1-3) teaches each of the plurality of modulation portions comprising a layer of piezoelectric ceramic and a reflecting layer on a surface of the layer of piezoelectric ceramic, Robbins as modified by Scheller et al. and Lin et al. teaches each of the plurality of modulation portions comprising a layer of piezoelectric ceramic and a reflecting layer on a surface of the layer of piezoelectric ceramic facing the display device.
The limitation, “wherein the control device controls a deformation degree of the layer of piezoelectric ceramic of each of the plurality of modulation portions by adjusting a value of the power voltage provided to the layer of piezoelectric ceramic of each of the plurality of modulation portions” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Robbins discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
The applicant should note that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of the reference may be bodily incorporated into the other to produce the claimed subject matter but simply what the references make obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art. In re Bozek, 163 USPQ 545, (CCPA 1969); In re Richman, 165 USPQ 509, (CCPA 1970); In re Beckum, 169 USPQ 47, (CCPA 1971); In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 218 USPQ 385. In addition, the fact that the applicant uses that method for a different purpose does not alter the conclusion that its use in a prior art device would be prima facie obvious from the purpose disclosed in the reference.” In re Lintner, 173 USQP 560.
The claim language therefore does not patentably distinguish over the applied reference[s], and the previous rejections are maintained.
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.
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 27 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. The limitation “wherein the control device is further configured to the power voltage to form an electric field perpendicular to a deformation direction of the layer of piezoelectric ceramic of each of the plurality of modulation portions” as presented in claim 27 appear to be unclear. The examiner is not sure how the control device is configured to the power voltage. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
Claims 11, 19-21, 23, 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robbins (US 2013/0322810) in view of Scheller et al. (US 2022/0244036); further in view of Lin et al. (CN 110319931).
Regarding claim 11, Robbins (figures 1-2) discloses an augmented reality display apparatus, comprising:
a display device (108; see at least paragraph 0015) for emitting image light;
an optical waveguide (114-120) comprising a plurality of modulation portions and a total reflection portion (102-104), each of the plurality of modulation portions being configured to receive and reflect the image light (figure 1), wherein the reflecting layer is configured for reflecting the image light, the total reflection portion is configured for total reflecting the image light from the reflecting layer, the optical waveguide is configured to receive and guide the image light from the total reflection portion to project images on an eye human eye (The waveguide 102 includes a polarizing beam splitter 116 or other type of optical filter to reflect the light that enters at a first polarization orientation angle so that the light propagates down the waveguide; see at least paragraph 0018).
Robbins discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 11 above. However, Robbins is silent regarding the deformable mirror.
Scheller et al. (figures 5A-5B) teaches the modulation portion may be a mirror, semi-mirrored surface, holographic reflector, deformable mirror, deformable mirror, or diffractive grating (see at least paragraph 0046). Therefore, 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 modulation portions as taught by Scheller et al. in order to increase sensing accuracy while reducing the complexity of hardware and software architectures. In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use deformable mirrors since it was known in the art that deformable mirrors are commonly used as modulation portions.
In addition, Lin et al. (figures 1-3) teaches a control device electrically connected to the piezoelectric ceramic of each of the plurality of modulation portions and configured to provide a power voltage to layer of piezoelectric ceramic of each of the plurality of modulation portions (The electrode for the control device is electrically connected with the external adjustable voltage, through the side surface electrode of the piezoelectric material adding voltage, caused by deformation of the piezoelectric material; see at least abstract); wherein the control device controls a deformation degree of the layer of piezoelectric ceramic of each of the plurality of modulation portions by adjusting a value of the power voltage provided to the layer of piezoelectric ceramic of each of the plurality of modulation portions, and the control device is further configured to control a direction of the image light by controlling value of the power voltage (6-7; the blazed grating base wherein the invention made of piezoelectric material with 3 axis directions 1, 2, 3, can be voltage, material on the shaft 3 along the axial direction 1 to be deformed. the polarization direction of the incident light beams 4 6 the direction of a diffracted light beam 5 associated with the grating constant 9; see at least page 4, second paragraph). Therefore, 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 modulation portions as taught by Scheller et al. in order to achieve optical filter capable of controlling diffraction efficiency reflection grating blazed angle adjustable voltage.
Since Robbins (figures 1-2) discloses modulation portions facing the display device and Lin et al. (figures 1-3) teaches each of the plurality of modulation portions comprising a layer of piezoelectric ceramic and a reflecting layer on a surface of the layer of piezoelectric ceramic, Robbins as modified by Scheller et al. and Lin et al. teaches each of the plurality of modulation portions comprising a layer of piezoelectric ceramic and a reflecting layer on a surface of the layer of piezoelectric ceramic facing the display device.
The limitation, “wherein the control device controls a deformation degree of the layer of piezoelectric ceramic of each of the plurality of modulation portions by adjusting a value of the power voltage provided to the layer of piezoelectric ceramic of each of the plurality of modulation portions” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Robbins discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 19, Robbins (figures 1-2) discloses wherein the optical waveguide further comprises an outgoing diffraction portion configured to receive and reflect the image light total reflected by the total reflection portion, and guide the image light exit from-the outgoing diffraction portion and to project the images on eye (figure 1; The components for extracting light out of the waveguides and projecting the light of an image for viewing at 122 can also be diffractive or reflective; see at least paragraph 0019).
Regarding claim 20, Lin et al. (figures 1-3) teaches wherein the control device is further configured to control the plurality of modulation portions to expand according to a chromatic aberration of an image the images formed by the image light (6-7; the blazed grating base wherein the invention made of piezoelectric material with 3 axis directions 1, 2, 3, can be voltage, material on the shaft 3 along the axial direction 1 to be deformed. the polarization direction of the incident light beams 4 6 the direction of a diffracted light beam 5 associated with the grating constant 9; see at least page 4, second paragraph).
The limitations " the control device is further configured to control the plurality of modulation portions to expand or contract according to a chromatic aberration of an image formed by the image light " are regarded as intended use limitations. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 21, Lin et al. (figures 1-3) teaches wherein in response to that the control device decreases the value of the power voltage, a diffraction angle of the image light exit from the plurality of modulation portions deceases (the spectrum distribution of the given blaze angle has maximum diffraction efficiency wavelength, namely the blazed wavelength, gradually reduced at two side diffraction efficiency of the blazed wavelength, blazing is gradually increased, the blazed wavelength of the grating increases along with it. If the continuously changing voltage, then the grating with high diffraction efficiency bandwidth can obtain additional extension, namely grating work wavelength range increases significantly; see at least page 3, the last 4 paragraphs).
The limitation, “wherein a diffraction angle of the image light exit from the plurality of modulation portions deceases as the value of the power voltage increases when the plurality of modulation portions are controlled to expand” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Lin et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 23, Robbins (figures 1-2) discloses wherein the optical waveguide guides the image light to project on the eye vertically (figure 1).
The limitation, “wherein the optical waveguide guides the image light to project on the eye vertically” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Lin et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 27, Robbins (figures 1-2) discloses wherein the control device is further configured to the power voltage to form an electric field perpendicular to a deformation direction of the layer of piezoelectric ceramic of each of the plurality of modulation portions (As shown in FIG. 3, the blazed grating base wherein the invention made of piezoelectric material with 3 axis directions 1, 2, 3, can be voltage, material on the shaft 3 along the axial direction 1 to be deformed. the polarization direction of the incident light beam 4 6 the direction of a diffracted light beam 5 associated with the grating constant 9; see at least page 4, 2nd paragraph).
The limitation, “wherein the control device is further configured to the power voltage to form an electric field perpendicular to a deformation direction of the layer of piezoelectric ceramic of each of the plurality of modulation portions” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Lin et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 28, Robbins (figures 1-2) discloses wherein the detonation degree of the layer of piezoelectric ceramic further changes with a mode of piezoelectric ceramics in the layer of piezoelectric ceramic (As shown in FIG. 3, the blazed grating base wherein the invention made of piezoelectric material with 3 axis directions 1, 2, 3, can be voltage, material on the shaft 3 along the axial direction 1 to be deformed. the polarization direction of the incident light beam 4 6 the direction of a diffracted light beam 5 associated with the grating constant 9; see at least page 4, 2nd paragraph).
The limitation, “wherein the detonation degree of the layer of piezoelectric ceramic further changes with a mode of piezoelectric ceramics in the layer of piezoelectric ceramic” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Lin et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 29, Robbins (figures 1-2) discloses wherein the control device is further configured to control the plurality of modulation portions to shrink according to a chromatic aberration of the images formed by the image light (As shown in FIG. 3, the blazed grating base wherein the invention made of piezoelectric material with 3 axis directions 1, 2, 3, can be voltage, material on the shaft 3 along the axial direction 1 to be deformed. the polarization direction of the incident light beam 4 6 the direction of a diffracted light beam 5 associated with the grating constant 9; see at least page 4, 2nd paragraph).
The limitation, “wherein the control device is further configured to control the plurality of modulation portions to shrink according to a chromatic aberration of the images formed by the image light” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Lin et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
The limitations “wherein the control device is further configured to control the plurality of modulation portions to shrink according to a chromatic aberration of the images formed by the image light” are regarded as intended use limitations. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this case, the light source of the display is not claimed. The prior art display is capable of being combined with a light source providing the alternating light
Regarding claim 30, Robbins (figures 1-2) discloses wherein a diffraction angle of the image light exit from the plurality of modulation portions increases in response to that the control device increase the value of the power voltage (As shown in FIG. 3, the blazed grating base wherein the invention made of piezoelectric material with 3 axis directions 1, 2, 3, can be voltage, material on the shaft 3 along the axial direction 1 to be deformed. the polarization direction of the incident light beam 4 6 the direction of a diffracted light beam 5 associated with the grating constant 9; see at least page 4, 2nd paragraph).
The limitation, “wherein a diffraction angle of the image light exit from the plurality of modulation portions increases in response to that the control device increase the value of the power voltage it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Lin et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Claims 12, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robbins in view of Scheller et al. and Lin et al.; further in view of Meitav et al. (US 2022/0099977).
Regarding claim 12, Robbins discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 11 above. However, Robbins is silent regarding the display device comprises a plurality of pixels. Meitav et al. (figures 6-9B) teaches wherein the display device comprises a plurality of pixels, each of the plurality of pixels comprises a plurality of sub-pixels to emit a plurality of primary lights of different colors simultaneously (light ray 770 (e.g., blue light) is deflected by the first in-coupling optical element 700, and then continues to bounce down the waveguide, interacting with the light distributing element (e.g., OPE's) 730 and then the out-coupling optical element (e.g., EPs) 800, in a manner described earlier. The light rays 780 and 790 (e.g., green and red light, respectively) will pass through the waveguide 670, with light ray 780 impinging on and being deflected by in-coupling optical element 710; see at least paragraph 0106); and the plurality of sub-pixels correspond to the plurality of modulation portions one-by-one, each of the plurality of modulation portions is configured to change one- primary light emitted by from-a corresponding sub-pixel of the plurality of sub-pixels, (figure 9A). Therefore, 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 display as taught by Meitav et al. in order to increase sensing accuracy while reducing the complexity of hardware and software architectures. Therefore, Robbins as modified by Scheller et al., Lin et al., and Meitav et al. teaches the control device is further configured to control directions of the plurality of primary lights emitted by the plurality of modulation portions simultaneously.
Regarding claim 14, Robbins as modified by Scheller et al., Lin et al., and Meitav et al. (figures 6-9B) teaches the control device is further configured to change a reflection direction of the image light by adjusting the value of the power voltage based on a light deflection angle of each of the plurality of primary lights (RGB).
Regarding claim 17, Meitav et al. (figures 6-9B) teaches wherein each of the plurality of pixels comprises three sub-pixels to emit three primary lights of different colors (RGB).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1428. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 8:00 AM -6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Carruth, can be reached at 571-272-9791. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAUREN NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights