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
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group IIA invention (figure 3a), including claims 11-12, 14-17, 19-23, in the reply filed on 03/25/2026 is acknowledged.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: 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” appears to be a conditional claim. For examining purposes, the examiner assumes the first part of the phrase is no longer valid if the plurality of modulation portions are not controlled to expand.
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation “wherein a diffraction angle of the image light exit from the plurality of modulation portions increases as the value of the power voltage increases when the plurality of modulation portions are controlled to shrink” appears to be a conditional claim. For examining purposes, the examiner assumes the first part of the phrase is no longer valid if the plurality of modulation portions are not controlled to shrink.
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, 15-16, 19-23 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 reflex portion (102-104), each of the plurality of modulation portions being configured to receive and reflect the image light (figure 1), the total reflex portion being configured for total reflection of the image light from the plurality of modulation portions, the optical waveguide being configured to receive and guide the image light to 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 plurality of modulation portions and being configured to provide a power voltage to 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 a deformation degree of each of the plurality of modulation portions changes with a value of the power voltage, and the control device is further configured to control a direction of the image light by controlling the deformation degree of the plurality of modulation portions (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 achiee optical filter capable of controlling diffraction efficiency reflection grating blazed angle adjustable voltage.
The limitation, “wherein a deformation degree of each of the plurality of modulation portions changes with a value of the power voltage” 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 15, Robbins (figures 1-2) discloses the reflecting surface of the modulation portion facing the display device. Therefore, Robbins as modified by Scheller et al. and Lin et al. teaches wherein each of the plurality of modulation portions comprises a piezoelectric ceramic and a reflecting layer on a surface of the piezoelectric ceramic facing the display device (the blazed grating substrate 2 with an optical surface, the optical surface is a plane, a concave spherical or cylindrical, preferably, on the optical surface of the blazed grating base body deposited with reflecting film; see at least page 1, the last three paragraphs).
Regarding claim 16, Lin et al. (figures 1-3) teaches wherein the reflecting layer is configured to reflect the image light, the piezoelectric ceramic is connected to the control device, and the control device is further configured to change the deformation degree of the piezoelectric ceramic by changing the 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).
Regarding claim 19, Robbins (figures 1-2) discloses wherein the waveguide further comprises an outgoing diffraction portion configured to receive and reflect the image light after been total reflected by the total reflex portion, and the image light exit from the outgoing diffraction portion forms image to the human 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 or contract according to a chromatic aberration of an image 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 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 (he 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 22, Lin et al. (figures 1-3) teaches wherein a diffraction angle of the image light exit from the plurality of modulation portions increases as the value of the power voltage increases when the plurality of modulation portions are controlled to shrink (he 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 increases as the value of the power voltage increases when the plurality of modulation portions are controlled to shrink” 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 image light from the waveguide incident into the human eye vertically (figure 1).
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 of the plurality of primary lights from a corresponding sub-pixel (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 David 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 configured to control the directions of the plurality of primary lights simultaneously.
Regarding claim 14, 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).
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
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