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 IA24 invention (figure 26), including claims 1-10, in the reply filed on 05/11/2026 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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-10, 21, 24, 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Curtis et al. (US 2018/0052320).
Regarding claim 1, Curtis et al. (figures 87-89) discloses an image projection system including:
an illumination source (8810);
a linear polarizer (8825);
an eyepiece waveguide (8910, 8920, 8930) including a plurality of diffractive in-coupling optical elements (8912, 8922, 8932), wherein the eyepiece waveguide includes a region operable to transmit illumination light from the illumination source (figure 89);
a polarizing beamsplitter (8830; figure 88);
a reflective structure (8832; the collimator 8832, which is a reflective collimator in some embodiments, quasi-collimates or collects the beam emitted by the light sources 8810 and directs the collimated beams back through the quarter waveplate 8827 again into the PBS 8830 with a polarization state changed to direct the light onto the display panel 8820; see at least paragraph 0686);
a quarter waveplate (8827) disposed between the polarizing beamsplitter and the reflective structure; and
a reflective spatial light modulator (8820; a display panel 8820 is an LCOS panel, but the disclosure is not limited to this implementation. In other embodiments, other display panels, including frontlit LCOS (FLCOS), DLP; see at least paragraph 0685).
Regarding claim 2, Curtis et al. (figures 87-89) discloses wherein the illumination source comprises a plurality of light sources arrayed in a sub-pupil configuration (see at least paragraph 0685).
Regarding claim 3, Curtis et al. (figures 87-89) discloses wherein the sub-pupil configuration is reproduced at the plurality of diffractive in-coupling optical elements (see at least paragraph 0686).
The limitation, “wherein the sub-pupil configuration is reproduced at the plurality of diffractive in-coupling optical elements” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Sung 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 4, Curtis et al. (figures 87-89) discloses wherein the illumination source comprises a plurality of light sources, wherein each of the plurality of light sources is aligned along an optical axis (the spatially displaced light sources 8810 are adjacent a first side 8801 of the PBS 8830; see at least paragraph 0688).
Regarding claim 5, Curtis et al. (figures 87-89) discloses wherein the linear polarizer is disposed between the illumination source and the eyepiece waveguide (figure 88).
Regarding claim 7, Curtis et al. (figures 87-89) discloses wherein the quarter waveplate is disposed on a surface of the polarizing beamsplitter facing the reflective structure (8827; figure 88).
Regarding claim 9, Curtis et al. (figures 87-89) discloses wherein the linear polarizer is operable to transmit light having a first polarization state and the polarizing beamsplitter includes a polarization selective interface operable to transmit light having the first polarization state.
The limitation, “wherein the linear polarizer is operable to transmit light having a first polarization state and the polarizing beamsplitter includes a polarization selective interface operable to transmit light having the first polarization state” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Curtis 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 10, Curtis et al. (figures 87-89) discloses wherein the illumination light emitted by the illumination source propagates along a first axial direction and encoded light is incident on the plurality of diffractive in-coupling optical elements along a second axial direction parallel to and transversely offset from the first axial direction (figures 88-89).
The limitation, “wherein the illumination light emitted by the illumination source propagates along a first axial direction and encoded light is incident on the plurality of diffractive in-coupling optical elements along a second axial direction parallel to and transversely offset from the first axial direction” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Curtis 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 21, Curtis et al. (figures 87-89) discloses wherein the linear polarizer is mounted to the eyepiece waveguide (figure 88).
Regarding claim 24, Curtis et al. (figures 87-89) discloses wherein the reflective spatial light modulator comprises a liquid crystal on silicon (LCOS) device (see at least paragraph 0011).
Regarding claim 30, Curtis et al. (figures 87-89) discloses wherein the reflective spatial light modulator and the reflective structure are configured to reflect illumination light that is coupled into the plurality of diffractive in-coupling optical elements (figures 88-89).
The limitation, “wherein the reflective spatial light modulator and the reflective structure are configured to reflect illumination light that is coupled into the plurality of diffractive in-coupling optical elements” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Curtis 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.
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 6, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curtis et al. (US 2018/0052320) in view of Budd et al. (US 6,222,677).
Regarding claim 6, Curtis et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Curtis et al. is silent regarding wherein the reflective structure comprises a refractive and reflective mirror lens. Budd et al. (figure 8) teaches wherein the reflective structure comprises a refractive and reflective mirror lens (the reflective lens 500 has a reflective coating 550 at its curved surface that reflects light back through the quarter wave plate 400 into the prism 300; see at least column 6, lines 60-65). 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 image projection system as taught by Budd et al. in order to achieve an improved method of illumination for reflection liquid crystal microdisplays. This makes possible optical systems for virtual image displays of improved field of view, compactness, and shorter image path combined with good efficiency.
Regarding claim 23, Curtis et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Curtis et al. is silent regarding wherein the reflective structure comprises a multilayer dielectric stack. Budd et al. (figure 8) teaches wherein the reflective structure comprises a multilayer dielectric stack (The reflective lens may include a reflective coating such as, for example, a fully reflecting metallic coating, a fully reflecting multilayer dielectric coating, a partially reflecting coating, or a holographic coating; see at least column 2, lines 53-67). 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 image projection system as taught by Budd et al. in order to achieve an improved method of illumination for reflection liquid crystal microdisplays. This makes possible optical systems for virtual image displays of improved field of view, compactness, and shorter image path combined with good efficiency.
Claims 8, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curtis et al. (US 2018/0052320) in view of Shimizu (US 6,557,999).
Regarding claim 8, Curtis et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Curtis et al. is silent regarding an anti- reflection coating on a surface of the polarizing beamsplitter facing the reflective spatial light modulator. Zhimizu (figure 6) teaches an anti- reflection coating on a surface of the polarizing beamsplitter facing the reflective spatial light modulator (This face of the PBS 105 is preferably uncoated, while the remaining external faces are preferably antireflection coated 122, 115, 113, 124; see at least column 8, lines 22-24). 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 image projection system as taught by Zhimizu in order to reduce internal reflections.
Claims 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curtis et al. (US 2018/0052320) in view of Mathur et al. (US 2019/0287495).
Regarding claim 25, Curtis et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Curtis et al. is silent regarding an element having optical power disposed between the eyepiece waveguide and the polarizing beamsplitter. Mathur et al. (figure 36) teaches an element having optical power disposed between the eyepiece waveguide and the polarizing beamsplitter (The relay lens elements 14032, 14042, 14060, 14066 can include, by way of non-limiting examples, aspheric lenses, aplanatic lenses, hybrid refractive and diffractive lenses and achromatic lenses, compound lenses including for example refractive lenses along with diffractive lenses; see at least paragraph 0465). 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 image projection system as taught by Mathur et al. in order to reduce requirements for processing power for providing content on display systems.
Regarding claim 26, Curtis et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Curtis et al. is silent regarding an element having optical power disposed between the polarizing beamsplitter and the reflective structure. Mathur et al. (figure 36) teaches an element having optical power disposed between the polarizing beamsplitter and the reflective structure (The relay lens elements 14032, 14042, 14060, 14066 can include, by way of non-limiting examples, aspheric lenses, aplanatic lenses, hybrid refractive and diffractive lenses and achromatic lenses, compound lenses including for example refractive lenses along with diffractive lenses; see at least paragraph 0465). 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 image projection system as taught by Mathur et al. in order to reduce requirements for processing power for providing content on display systems.
Regarding claim 27, Curtis et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Curtis et al. is silent regarding an element having optical power disposed between the polarizing beamsplitter and the reflective spatial light modulator. Mathur et al. (figure 36) teaches an element having optical power disposed between the polarizing beamsplitter and the reflective spatial light modulator (The relay lens elements 14032, 14042, 14060, 14066 can include, by way of non-limiting examples, aspheric lenses, aplanatic lenses, hybrid refractive and diffractive lenses and achromatic lenses, compound lenses including for example refractive lenses along with diffractive lenses; see at least paragraph 0465). 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 image projection system as taught by Mathur et al. in order to reduce requirements for processing power for providing content on display systems.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curtis et al. (US 2018/0052320) in view of Schuck, III et al. (US 2007/0030456).
Regarding claim 28, Curtis et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Curtis et al. is silent regarding wherein the polarizing beamsplitter comprises a polarization selective interface and a transmission axis of the linear polarizer is aligned with a transmission axis of the polarization selective interface. Schuck, III et al. (figure 7A) teaches wherein the polarizing beamsplitter comprises a polarization selective interface and a transmission axis of the linear polarizer is aligned with a transmission axis of the polarization selective interface (A first optical element 715 (e.g., a pre-polarizer) is aligned to pass light with p-polarization to a polarizing beam splitter (PBS) 720. Initially, light passes through an interface 722 (e.g., a polarizing interface) of the PBS 720 and impinges on a spatial light modulator (SLM) 730. The SLM 730, also referred to as a display panel, impresses a spatial modulation on the light to provide an image. In an on state, the SLM 730 modulates input light from a first polarization state (e.g., p-polarization state) to a second polarization state (e.g., s-polarization state) such that a bright state (e.g., white pixel) is shown. The second polarization state may be the first polarization state modulated (e.g., shifted) by 90°. In the on state, the light having the second polarization state is reflected by the interface 722 and goes downstream to projector lens 740.; see at least paragraph 0089). 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 image projection system as taught by Schuck, III et al. in order to reduce requirements for processing power for providing content on display systems.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curtis et al. (US 2018/0052320) in view of Duncan et al. (US 2007/0030456).
Regarding claim 29, Curtis et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Curtis et al. is silent regarding wherein the polarizing beamsplitter comprises at least one surface having a spherical or aspherical curvature. Duncan et al. (figure 2) teaches wherein the polarizing beamsplitter comprises at least one surface having a spherical or aspherical curvature (see at least claim 2). 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 image projection system as taught by Duncan et al. in order to reduce requirements for processing power for providing content on display systems.
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