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 § 112
Claim 15 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.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is listed as depending from claim 14, however, as paragraph 0052 of the USPGPub of this application says that the embodiments of the piezoelectric actuators are used in lieu of the electromagnetic actuator. Therefore it is unclear how a mutual exclusive feature can depend upon another mutual exclusive feature. For the purpose of examination claim 15 will be interpreted as depending from claim 13, not claim 14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7 ,13 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Saarikko et al. (US 2010/0079865 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 16, Saarikko teaches an input coupling grating (14, figure 2);
A scanning mirror (18, figure 2) configured to rotate about two or more different axes of rotation (paragraph 0035, if the scanning mirror is the only element being used to scan the image as it is described to be such in paragraph 0035, then in order to achieve a two dimensional image, the scanning mirror must scan in at least two dimensions;
An optical element (30, “Polarizing beam splitter” and ¼ wave plate, figure 2); and
A light emitting component (Optical fibre, figure 2) with a light emitting end (see ‘Collimator’, figure 1, which is shown but not labeled at the light emitting end in figure 2 of element 20) disposed between the input coupling grating (14) and the scanning mirror (18), wherein the light emitted from the light emitting end is reflected off the scanning mirror, refracted through the optical element, and into the input coupling grating (see paragraph 0043).
Regarding claim 2 and 17, Saarikko teaches the light emitted from the light emitting end is refracted through at least a portion of the optical element (the light is refracted through the right half of the polarizing beam splitter in figure 2) prior to being reflected off the scanning mirror (paragraph 0035).
Regarding claim 3 and 18, Saarikko teaches the light emitting component comprises an optical fiber (Optical Fibre, figure 2, element 20).
Regarding claim 4 and 19, Saarikko teaches the light emitting component comprises a laser or a light emitting diode (paragraph 0035), including optics configured to spread light emitted from the light emitting end (collimating optical element, paragraph 0035) across a portion of a surface scanning mirror.
Regarding claim 5 and 20, Saarikko teaches the light emitted from the light emitting end passes through a central region of the optical element (image light is reflected at the interface between the first and second prisms which runs diagonally across the middle of the PBS in figure 2).
Regarding claim 7, Saarikko teaches an eyepiece (12, figure 2), wherein the input coupling grating is configured to receive the light emitted from the light emitting end and transmit the received light into the eyepiece (paragraph 0035-0036).
Regarding claim 13, Saarikko teaches an actuator (inherent that something being driven to move has to physically have something moving it and whatever that is, is the ‘actuator’) configured to rotate the scanning mirror about one of the two or more different axes of rotation.
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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saarikko et al. (US 2010/0079865 A1) in view of Woelfing et al. (US 2015/0062953 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Saarikko does not teach the optical element comprises a channel and the light emitting component is disposed in the channel.
Woelfing teaches a channel (20, figure 2) and the light emitting component is disposed in the channel (14, figure 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the display of Saarikko to use the fiber optic and groove arrangement as shown in Woelfing in order to better secure the fiber optics relative to the optical component and make the system more compact.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saarikko et al. (US 2010/0079865 A1) in view of Plut (US 2005/0041000 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Saarikko does not teach the light emitting component comprises an optical fiber that is one of a plurality of optical fibers and the first optical fiber of the plurality of parallel to a second optical fiber of the plurality of optical fibers.
Plut teaches the light emitting component comprises an optical fiber that is one of a plurality of optical fibers and the first optical fiber of the plurality of parallel to a second optical fiber of the plurality of optical fibers (202, 214, figure 4A).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the display of Saarikko to use plural optical fibers as taught in Plut in order to improve brightness in the projection system.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saarikko et al. (US 2010/0079865 A1) in view of Levola (US 8,466,953 B2).
Regarding claim 9, Saarikko does not specify that the optical element is configured to at least partially collimate the light reflected off the scanning mirror prior to the light entering the input coupling grating.
Levola teaches a collimating lens (undescribed but labeled 28 is shown to collimate the light form modulator 24, figures 3a-3b)) between the modulation element and the input coupling grating.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the NED of Saarikko to use a collimating element between the scanning mirror and the input coupling grating as taught in Levola in order to improve coupling efficiency.
Regarding claim 10, Saarikko does not specify the optical element comprises a lens having a convex surface oriented toward the input coupling grating.
Levola teaches the optical element comprises a lens (28, figure 3a-3b) having a convex surface toward the input coupling grating (see figure 3a).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the NED of Saarikko to use a collimating element between the scanning mirror and the input coupling grating as taught in Levola in order to improve coupling efficiency.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saarikko et al. (US 2010/0079865 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Saarikko teaches the single scanning mirror can be used for both optical channels (see figure 1).
Saarikko therefore teaches the claimed invention except for specifying that the optical element is a first optical element and that the display further has a second optical element. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the display of Saarikko to use a second optical element, since it has been held mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpended result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). In this case adding the extra optical element and channel and sharing the scanning mirror between them would result in the scanning mirror being between both optical elements.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the display of Saarikko to use two optical elements in order to create an optical channel for both eyes and improve user experience.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saarikko et al. (US 2010/0079865 A1) in view of Imaki et al. (JP 2011-025446 A).
Regarding claim 12, Saarikko does not specify the scanning mirror has a first reflective surface oriented toward the first optical element and a second reflective surface oriented toward the second optical element.
Imaki teaches one scanning mirror using opposing surfaces for scanning two different channels (22, figure 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the display of Saarikko to make the scanning mirror scan both channels simultaneously as shown in Imaki in order to improve scanning speed.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saarikko et al. (US 2010/0079865 A1) in view of Saracco et al. (US 9,798,149 B1).
Regarding claim 14, Saarikko does not teach the actuator comprises an electromagnetic actuator, wherein a magnet is positioned on either end of the scanning mirror, wherein the magnets emits a persistent magnetic field; the persistent magnetic field is configured to interact with a shifting magnetic field emitted by an electromagnetic coil; and interaction between the persistent magnetic field and the shifting magnetic field induces rotation of the scanning mirror about an axis of rotation.
Saracco teaches the actuator comprises an electromagnetic actuator, wherein a magnet is positioned on either end of the scanning mirror, wherein the magnets emits a persistent magnetic field; the persistent magnetic field is configured to interact with a shifting magnetic field emitted by an electromagnetic coil; and interaction between the persistent magnetic field and the shifting magnetic field induces rotation of the scanning mirror about an axis of rotation (column 9 lines 25-30).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the display of Saarikko to use the electromagnetic actuation of Saracco in order to improve switching speed in the scanning mirror.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saarikko et al. (US 2010/0079865 A1) in view of Elata (US 2019/0189897 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Saarikko does not specify that the actuator is one or more piezoelectric actuators and the actuators have a spiral geometry.
Elata teaches a device driven by spiral piezoelectric actuators (figure 11 and 12).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the display of Saarikko to use the spiral piezoelectric actuators of Elata in order to improve the range of motion of the reflector while improving scanning speed (paragraph 0008).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, 7-13 and 16-18 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-8 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,078,804 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 1 and 16 of this application, claim 1 of US 12,078,804 B2 includes an input coupling grating (column 16 line 48), a scanning mirror configured to rotate about two or more different axes of rotation (column 16 line 49-50), an optical element (column 16 lines 51-53). Furthermore claim 1 of US 12,078,804 includes a more specific light emitting component (column 16 lines 54-61) which includes all the claim limitations of the light emitting component of this application in addition to being more specific. Therefore, this could lead to harassment by multiple assignees.
Claim 2 and 17 corresponds to limitations found in claim 1 of US 12,078,804 (column 16 line 54-61)
Claim 3 and 18 corresponds to limitations found in claim 1 of US 12,078,804 (column 16 line 54).
Claim 7 corresponds to limitations found in claim 2 of US 12,078,804.
Claim 8 corresponds to limitations found in claim 4 of US 12,078,804.
Claim 9 corresponds to limitations found in claim 5 of US 12,078,804.
Claim 10 corresponds to limitations found in claim 6 of US 12,078,804.
Claim 11 corresponds to limitations found in claim 7 of US 12,078,804.
Claim 12 corresponds to limitations found in claim 8 of US 12,078,804.
Regarding claim 13, claim 12 of US 12,078,804 contains all the limitations of claim 13 (see claim 11 of 12,078,804 for the components of claim 1 of this application upon which claim 13 depends) in addition to being more specific. This could lead to harassment by multiple assignees.
Claim 4 and 19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,078,804 in view of Saarikko et al. (US 2010/0079865 A1).
Regarding claim 4 and 19, Claim 1 of US 12,078,804 teaches all the limitations of claim 4 and 19 except for specifying that the light emitting component comprises a laser or LED including optics configured to spread the light emitted form the light emitting end across a portion of a surface scanning mirror.
Saarikko teaches the light emitting component comprises a laser or a light emitting diode (paragraph 0035), including optics configured to spread light emitted from the light emitting end (collimating optical element, paragraph 0035) across a portion of a surface scanning mirror.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the display of Claim 1 to use the collimator and light source of Saarikko in order to improve light collection in the display system.
Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,078,804 in view of Saracco et al. (US 9,798,149 B1).
Regarding claim 14, claim 12 of US 12,078,804 teaches an electromagnetic actuator (column 18 line 6).
Claim 12 of US 12,078,804 does not teach wherein a magnet is positioned on either end of the scanning mirror, wherein the magnets emits a persistent magnetic field; the persistent magnetic field is configured to interact with a shifting magnetic field emitted by an electromagnetic coil; and interaction between the persistent magnetic field and the shifting magnetic field induces rotation of the scanning mirror about an axis of rotation.
Saracco teaches the actuator comprises an electromagnetic actuator, wherein a magnet is positioned on either end of the scanning mirror, wherein the magnets emits a persistent magnetic field; the persistent magnetic field is configured to interact with a shifting magnetic field emitted by an electromagnetic coil; and interaction between the persistent magnetic field and the shifting magnetic field induces rotation of the scanning mirror about an axis of rotation (column 9 lines 25-30).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the display of claim 12 of US 12,078,804 to use the electromagnetic actuation of Saracco in order to improve switching speed in the scanning mirror.
Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,078,804 in view of Elata (US 2019/0189897 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Claim 12 of US 12,078,804 does not specify that the actuator is one or more piezoelectric actuators and the actuators have a spiral geometry.
Elata teaches a device driven by spiral piezoelectric actuators (figure 11 and 12).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the display of Claim 12 of US 12,078,804 to replace the electromagnetic actuator with the spiral piezoelectric actuators of Elata in order to improve the range of motion of the reflector while improving scanning speed (paragraph 0008).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN D HOWARD whose telephone number is (571)270-5358. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5:00.
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, Minh-Toan Ton can be reached at 5712722303. 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.
/RYAN D HOWARD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882 12/04/2025