Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
Figure 2 is objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because it uses "TG" to designate a turning optic, but the written description consistently uses "TO".
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 12 is 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.
Claim 12 is indefinite because there is insufficient antecedent basis for "the cover window". No cover window is mentioned in any of claim 12's ancestor claims. It appears that "the cover window" should be replaced with "a cover window".
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 13-14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2022/0128744 A1.
Claim 1: '744 discloses an image light guide system, comprising (see mainly figs. 11-16):
an image light guide 130 having a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface;
an in-coupling diffractive optic 805 operable to couple image-bearing light beams 1605 into the image light guide;
an out-coupling diffractive optic 815 operable to direct at least a first portion 1110 of the image-bearing light beams from the image light guide toward an eyebox and direct a second portion 1115 of the image-bearing light beams from the image light guide away from the eyebox; and
an interference filter 1205 (figs. 14-16, [0059]-[0063]) configured to reflect at least a sub-portion 1610 of the second portion of the image-bearing light beams and direct the sub-portion of the second portion of the image-bearing light beams towards the eyebox (fig. 16, [0067]).
Claim 2: The sub-portion 1610 of the second portion of the image-bearing light beams corresponds to a range of wavelengths within a visible portion of the electromagnetic spectrum ([0055]; note also [0074]).
Claim 3: The range of wavelengths is between 495 nm and 570 nm ([0055] specifies 400 nm to 650 nm, which fully encompasses the recited range).
Claim 4: The interference filter 1205 is arranged to receive and transmit (note "at least partially reflected" and "transmitted real-world light 1715" in [0069]) real-world image-bearing light 1705 from an environment around the user and wherein the interference filter is configured to receive and reflect a sub-portion 1710 of the real-world image-bearing light toward the environment (fig. 17).
Claim 5: The sub-portion 1710 of the real-world image-bearing light corresponds to a range of wavelengths within a visible portion of the electromagnetic spectrum.
Claim 6: The range of wavelengths is between 495 and 570 nm ([0055]).
Claim 13: The image light guide system further comprises an image source 105 configured to generate a plurality of angularly encoded image-bearing light beams.
Claim 14: The first and second surfaces of the image light guide are plane-parallel surfaces (figs. 11 and 16).
Claim 16: The image light guide system further comprises a cover window 1210 arranged between the first surface and an environment (fig. 16).
Claim 17: The interference filter 1205 is embedded within or engaged with the cover window 1210 (engaged with, because 1205 is disposed on 1210; see figs. 12 and 16, [0055], [0060], [0062], etc.).
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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0128744 A1 (applied above).
Claim 15: '744 does not appear to disclose any particular numerical value for the transmissivity of the interference filter 1205, and thus does not disclose that the interference filter has a transmissivity between 25%-50% with respect to the sub-portion 1610 of the second portion of the image-bearing light beams. However '744 recognizes that the transmissivity of the interference filter is a result-effective variable in that reducing the transmissivity could increase the luminance of the image-bearing light beams and improve light security of the device, at the expense of see-through transmission (see [0004] and [0068]). Conversely, increasing the transmissivity could improve see-through transmission but reduce brightness of the image-bearing light for the wearer and permit escape of more of that light to the outside. It has been held that optimization of result-effective variables is obvious absent evidence of criticality (MPEP 2144.05(II)). Accordingly it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claim 15 to determine a suitable value for the transmissivity of the interference filter 1205, based on the balance of factors needed for a given application as described in [0004] and [0068] and/or nuisance or security considerations as mentioned in [0054].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-12 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 base claim 1 and all applicable intervening claims (and for claim 12, if the minor antecedent basis issue mentioned above is resolved). Regarding claim 7, the '744 reference applied to ancestor claims 1 and 4-6 does not disclose or suggest an absorber layer having the recited properties. Claims 8-12 depend from claim 7.
Another potential distinction is that the '744 interference filter is intentionally configured to reflect a relatively broad wavelength band, while the instant application appears to configure its interference filter to reflect a relatively narrow wavelength band. '744 also appears to prefer broadband reflectors over narrowband reflectors in [0065] and seems to teach away from narrowband reflectors in [0066]. Although instant claims 3 and 6 happen to refer to specific wavelength bands, they are not construed as excluding wavelengths outside the recited ranges.
Conclusion
The additional references listed on the attached 892 form are considered generally relevant to the subject matter of this application. Several of them address the leakage of image light through the front (real-world side) of a display.
Contact Information
Examiner: 571-272-2360
Examiner's direct supervisor: 571-272-2397
Official correspondence by fax: 571-273-8300
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Should you have questions about Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Michael Stahl/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights