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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 4 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitations " ηWG,R (λ)", " ηWG,G (λ)" and " ηWG,B " in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes ηWG,R (λ)", " ηWG,G (λ)" and " ηWG,B will be interpreted as " ηB(λ), ηG(λ) and ηR(λ)" as defined in claim 4.
Claim 4 recites the limitations “wherein, ηSMDG,R (λ), ηSMDG,G (λ) and ηSMDG,B (λ) denote the optical efficiency spectrum of R, G, and B light sources, ηWG,R (λ), ηWG,G (λ), and ηWG,B (λ), denote an optical efficiency spectrum of a hologram optical element (HOE)-based waveguide display recorded in monochrome for a single light source for each of the R, G and B” in lines 7-10. The difference between these limitations is unclear as both terms are defined as optical efficiency for R,G and B light sources. For examination purposes the terms “ηSMDG,R (λ), ηSMDG,G (λ) and ηSMDG,B (λ)” are being interpreted as the efficiency according as a result of the spacing between optical patterns and the terms “ηWG,R (λ), ηWG,G (λ), and ηWG,B (λ)”, are being interpreted as the diffraction efficiency of each color individually at a wavelength.
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.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kress et al. (US 20230375841 A1) in view of Popovich et al. (US 20220283377 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kress discloses in at least figure 5B, an optical output device (display engine 570 fig. 5B) that outputs light corresponding to an image (display engine 570 generates optical radiation as part of an RGB display paragraph [0089]) to be output (the output metasurface coupler 566 decouples the optical radiation from the waveguide 560 for visualization by a user paragraph [0089]) on ----a head mount display (metasurfaces may be used, for example, to couple optical radiation into waveguides of near-eye displays (NEDs), such as head-mounted displays (HMD) paragraph [0040]);
a first diffraction grating (input metasurface coupler 565 fig. 5B can be a slanted grating paragraph [0046]) that diffracts (the input metasurface coupler 565 diffracts light into waveguide 560 output from display engine 570 fig. 5B) the output light (display engine 570 generates optical radiation as part of an RGB display paragraph [0089]);
a waveguide (waveguide 560 fig. 5B) that totally reflects the light diffracted (the waveguide 560 totally reflects the light entering from input metasurface coupler 565 paragraph [0088]) by the first diffraction grating (input metasurface coupler 565 fig. 5B); and
a second diffraction grating (output metasurface coupler 566 fig. 5B can be a slanted grating paragraph [0046]) that diffracts and outputs (output metasurface coupler 566 diffracts and outputs the light for visualization by the user at 575 fig. 5B) the totally reflected light (the waveguide 560 totally reflects the light entering from input metasurface coupler 565 fig. 5B).
wherein, in the first diffraction grating (input metasurface coupler 565 fig. 5B can be a slanted grating paragraph [0046]) and the second diffraction grating (output metasurface coupler 566 fig. 5B can be a slanted grating paragraph [0046]), pitches of R, G, and B of subpixels (the pitch of the sub pixels is the width as shown as PR , PG and PB in current application fig. 2A-C and meta surface cells 601, 602 and 603 have widths of 457 nm fig. 6A, 383 nm fig. 6B and 332 nm fig. 6C) constituting the image (the metasurfaces may deliver variations of an image to different spatial locations within the visual field paragraph [0072]) are determined according to a predetermined standard (the base widths are between 400-500 nm for red paragraph [0092], 350-450 nm for green paragraph [0095] and 300-400 nm for blue paragraph [0098], the base widths are smaller than the operational wavelengths paragraph [0092]).
Kress does not explicitly disclose, a head mount display device with an enhanced color gamut.
However Popovich discloses in at least figure 25, a head mount display device (a binocular display supported by a headband including waveguides in accordance with an embodiment of the invention paragraph [0155]) with an enhanced color gamut (the light source may be a laser or led with an excellent color gamut paragraph [0145]).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use laser projector as taught by Popovich in display system of Kress. The laser projector can offer the advantages of improved color gamut (paragraph [0104]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Kress and Popovich discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and Kress further discloses, wherein the first diffraction grating (input metasurface coupler 565 fig. 5B can be a slanted grating paragraph [0046]) and the second diffraction grating (output metasurface coupler 566 fig. 5B can be a slanted grating paragraph [0046]) are one of a hologram optical element (HOE) (not required by claim), a binary grating (not required by claim), a slanted grating (the metasurface is formed as a slanted grating paragraph [0046]), and a blazed grating (not required by claim).
Claim 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kress et al. (US 20230375841 A1) in view of Popovich et al. (US 20220283377 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Lee (KR 20210028931 A).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Kress and Popovich discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Kress does not disclose, wherein the pitches of the R, G, and B are determined based on an optical efficiency spectrum of each of the R, G, and B.
However Lee discloses in at least figure 4a, wherein the pitches of the R, G, and B (the pitch of the sub pixels is the width as shown as PR , PG and PB in current application fig. 2A-C and the width of the optical pattern is (we) and is between 7 to 8 um paragraph [0076] of translation) are determined based on (the width (we) can be determined more precisely by the refractive index of the material of the optical guide plate (130) and by the processing limit of the laser for forming the optical pattern (200) paragraph [0076] of translation) an optical efficiency spectrum of each of the R, G, and B (Bragg reflection diffraction efficiency according to each R, G, and B paragraph [0061] of translation).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to set the pitch to be optimized for efficiency as taught by Lee in display system of Kress. It can be seen that the Bragg reflection diffraction efficiency improves as the ratio (p/we) of the spacing (p) between optical patterns (200) and the width (we) of optical patterns (200) decreases (paragraph [0061] of translation).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Kress and Popovich discloses all the limitations of claim 2.
Kress does not disclose, wherein the pitches of each of R, G, and B are determined so that the optical efficiency spectrum of each of the R, G, and B is the same within a predetermined range.
However Lee discloses in at least figure 4a, wherein the pitches of each of R, G, and B (the pitch of the sub pixels is the width as shown as PR , PG and PB in current application fig. 2A-C and the width of the optical pattern is (we) and is between 7 to 8 um paragraph [0076] of translation) are determined (the width (we) can be determined more precisely by the refractive index of the material of the optical guide plate (130) and by the processing limit of the laser for forming the optical pattern (200) paragraph [0076] of translation) so that the optical efficiency spectrum of each of the R, G, and B (Bragg reflection diffraction efficiency according to each R, G, and B paragraph [0061] of translation) is the same within a predetermined range (the Bragg reflection diffraction efficiency decreases from 50% to 0% for each color between a ratio of 0.3 and 1.8 p/we fig. 4a).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have the same efficiency as taught by Lee in display system of Kress. It can be seen that the Bragg reflection diffraction efficiency improves as the ratio (p/we) of the spacing (p) between optical patterns (200) and the width (we) of optical patterns (200) decreases (paragraph [0061] of translation).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Kress and Popovich discloses all the limitations of claim 2.
Kress does not disclose, wherein the optical efficiency spectrum of each of the R, G, and B is calculated as Equation 1 below:
[Equation 1],
ηSMDG,B (λ) = ηB(λ) x PB/P, (450 nm < λ < 490 nm)
ηSMDG,G (λ) = ηG(λ) x PG/P, (530 nm < λ < 590 nm)
ηSMDG,R (λ) = ηR(λ) x PR/P, (630 nm < λ < 700 nm)
wherein, ηSMDG,R (λ), ηSMDG,G (λ) and ηSMDG,B (λ) denote the optical efficiency spectrum of R, G, and B light sources, ηWG,R (λ), ηWG,G (λ), and ηWG,B (λ), denote an optical efficiency spectrum of a hologram optical element (HOE)-based waveguide display recorded in monochrome for a single light source for each of the R, G, and B (), PR , PG and PB denote pitch sizes of R, G, and B subpixels (), respectively, and p denotes a pitch of a unit pixel.
However Lee discloses in at least figure 4a, wherein the optical efficiency spectrum of each of the R, G, and B (Bragg reflection diffraction efficiency according to each R, G, and B paragraph [0061] of translation) is calculated as Equation 1 below:
[Equation 1],
ηSMDG,B (λ) = ηB(λ) x PB/P, (450 nm < λ < 490 nm) (0% to 60% = 64% x 8 um /242 um = 2.12% to 64% x 7um /97 um = 4.62% as a result of the values below)
ηSMDG,G (λ) = ηG(λ) x PG/P, (530 nm < λ < 590 nm) (0% to 60% = 67% x 8 um /242 um = 2.12% to 67% x 7um /97 um = 4.84% as a result of the values below)
ηSMDG,R (λ) = ηR(λ) x PR/P, (630 nm < λ < 700 nm) (0% to 60% = 70.2% x 8 um /242 um = 2.32% to 70.2% x 7um /97 um = 5.07% as a result of the values below)
wherein, ηSMDG,R (λ), ηSMDG,G (λ) and ηSMDG,B (λ) denote the optical efficiency spectrum of R, G, and B light sources (the efficiency of the red blue and green sources ranges from 0% to 60% fig. 4a which is a graph based on experimental results showing the relationship between the spacing of the optical pattern and the Bragg reflection diffraction efficiency according to wavelength paragraph [0023] of translation, the B center wavelength 465 nm, the G center wavelength is 540 nm and the R center wavelength is 640 paragraph [0094] of translation), ηWG,R (λ), ηWG,G (λ), and ηWG,B (λ), denote an optical efficiency spectrum of a hologram optical element (HOE)-based waveguide display (the reflection diffraction efficiency for each wavelength is an improved value compared to the reflection diffraction efficiency of a head-mounted display device including a general holographic optical element paragraph [0094] of translation) recorded in monochrome for a single light source for each of the R (the reflection diffraction efficiency of a general head-mounted display device is 70.2% for the R optical pattern paragraph [0094] of translation), G (the reflection diffraction efficiency of a general head-mounted display device is 67% for the G optical pattern paragraph [0094] of translation), and B (the reflection diffraction efficiency of a general head-mounted display device is 64% for the B optical pattern paragraph [0094] of translation), PR , PG and PB denote pitch sizes of R, G, and B subpixels (the pitch of the sub pixels is the width as shown as PR , PG and PB in current application fig. 2A-C and the width of the optical pattern is (we) and is between 7 to 8 um paragraph [0076]), respectively, and p denotes a pitch of a unit pixel (the total width of the optical patterns is equal to the width of one pattern (7 to 8 um paragraph [0076]) multiplied by the total number of optical patterns (10 fig. 3a) with the addition of the width of the spaces (the spacing (p) between optical patterns (200) can be designed to be 3 to 18 μm paragraph [0061] of translation) multiplied by the number of spaces (9 fig. 3a) as a result of the values above the pitch p is equal to 7*10 + 3*9 = 97 um – 8*10 + 18*9 = 242 um).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have the same efficiency as taught by Lee in display system of Kress. It can be seen that the Bragg reflection diffraction efficiency improves as the ratio (p/we) of the spacing (p) between optical patterns (200) and the width (we) of optical patterns (200) decreases (paragraph [0061] of translation).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kress et al. (US 20230375841 A1) in view of Popovich et al. (US 20220283377 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Gollier (US 20190041658 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Kress and Popovich discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Kress does not disclose, wherein the pitches of each of the R, G, and B are determined based on the optical efficiency spectrum and sensitivity spectrum of each of the R, G, and B.
However Gollier discloses in at least figure 7A, wherein the pitches of each of the R, G, and B (pitches for the subpixels (12R, 12G, 12B) paragraph [0039]) are determined based on the optical efficiency spectrum (the grating shapes can improve the diffraction efficiency paragraph [0095] and the diffraction peaks appear at locations laterally offset from respective subpixels 12 by a distance less than a respective subpixel pitch paragraph [0057]) and sensitivity spectrum (the pixilated display device 10 may have a more dense array in a first region (e.g., a center region corresponding to a high sensitivity view for human eyes) and a less dense region in a second region (e.g., a peripheral region corresponding to a low sensitivity view for human eyes) the pixilated display device 10 may have shorter pitches for the subpixels (12R, 12G, 12B) in the first region, and may have longer pitches for the subpixels (12R, 12G, 12B) in the second region paragraph [0039] and the geometries of the individual first, second or third subpixels need not be the same and may be chosen to provide the correct color balance for the display paragraph [0038]) of each of the R, G, and B (subpixels (12R, 12G, 12B) fig. 7a).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to set the pitch to be optimized for efficiency and intensity as taught by Gollier in display system of Kress. The pixilated display device 10 and the two-dimensional array of pixels 112 therein can provide a curved viewing surface to provide enhanced viewing experience (paragraph [0041]).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kress et al. (US 20230375841 A1) in view of Popovich et al. (US 20220283377 A1) and Gollier (US 20190041658 A1) as applied to claim 5 above and in further view of Taniguchi (JP 3722299 B2).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Kress, Popovich and Gollier discloses all the limitations of claim 5.
Kress does not disclose, wherein the pitches of each of the R, G, and B are determined so that stimulus values calculated using the optical efficiency spectrum and sensitivity spectrum of each of the R, G, and B are the same within a predetermined range.
However Gollier further discloses, wherein the pitches of each of the R, G, and B (pitches for the subpixels (12R, 12G, 12B) paragraph [0039]) are determined (the grating shapes can improve the diffraction efficiency paragraph [0095] and the diffraction peaks appear at locations laterally offset from respective subpixels 12 by a distance less than a respective subpixel pitch paragraph [0057]) using the optical efficiency spectrum (the grating shapes can improve the diffraction efficiency paragraph [0095] and the diffraction peaks appear at locations laterally offset from respective subpixels 12 by a distance less than a respective subpixel pitch paragraph [0057]) and sensitivity spectrum (the pixilated display device 10 may have a more dense array in a first region (e.g., a center region corresponding to a high sensitivity view for human eyes) and a less dense region in a second region (e.g., a peripheral region corresponding to a low sensitivity view for human eyes) paragraph [0039]) of each of the R, G, and B (subpixels (12R, 12G, 12B) fig. 7a).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to set the pitch to be optimized for efficiency and intensity as taught by Gollier in display system of Kress. The pixilated display device 10 and the two-dimensional array of pixels 112 therein can provide a curved viewing surface to provide enhanced viewing experience (paragraph [0041]).
Additionally Taniguchi further discloses, stimulus values (tristimulus values displayed on chromaticity diagram in fig. 2 paragraph [0024]) calculated (by weighting the diffraction efficiency and means for calculating at luminance based on the calculated pass wavelength characteristic paragraph [0027] of translation which is shown by equation 1 paragraph [0032] of translation) using the optical efficiency spectrum (diffraction efficiency paragraph [0020] of translation) and sensitivity spectrum (luminous sensitivity characteristic paragraph [00027]) of each of the R, G, and B (color separation pixels R,G B fig. 2) are (R, G, and B have a similar peak at E(λ) for each wavelength fig. 2) within a predetermined range (wavelength range of blue, green and red light fig. 2).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have similar stimulus values as taught by Taniguchi in display system of Kress. Since it includes means for calculating the pass wavelength characteristic by weighting the diffraction efficiency and summing the light, and means for calculating at least one of chromaticity and luminance based on the calculated pass wavelength characteristic It eliminates the need for trial and error, which takes a lot of time and cost to actually make a CGH and make illumination light incident and evaluate the spectral characteristics of the hologram color filter obtained in the calculation (paragraph [0037] of translation).
Further, the stimulus values corresponds to a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, in the instant case the stimulus values directly impacts the e.g. the pitch of the pixels. Further, as a result-effective variable, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of such things involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In the instant case, 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 stimulus values to be the same for the purpose of e.g. optimizing the pitch of the pixels.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Kress Popovich and Taniguchi discloses all the limitations of claim 6.
Kress does not disclose, wherein the stimulus values of each of the R, G, and B are calculated as Equation 2 below:
[Equation 2],
PNG
media_image1.png
194
269
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein, R(λ), G(λ), and B (λ) denote the stimulus values of each of the R, G, and B, I(λ) denotes a light output spectrum, SR(λ), SG(λ), and SB(λ) denote the sensitivity spectrum of each of the R, G, and B.
However Taniguchi further discloses, wherein the stimulus values (tristimulus values displayed on chromaticity diagram in fig. 2 paragraph [0024]) of each of the R, G, and B (color separation pixels R,G B fig. 2) are calculated (by weighting the diffraction efficiency and means for calculating at luminance based on the calculated pass wavelength characteristic paragraph [0027] of translation which is shown by equation 1 paragraph [0032] of translation) as Equation 2 below:
[Equation 2],
PNG
media_image1.png
194
269
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(X = k∫E (λ) x ′ (λ) dλ (9) paragraph [0025 of translation)
(Y = k∫E (λ) y ′ (λ) dλ (10) paragraph [0025 of translation)
(Z = k∫E (λ) z ′ (λ) dλ (11) paragraph [0025 of translation)
wherein, R(λ), G(λ), and B (λ) denote the stimulus values of each of the R, G, and B (tristimulus values X, Y, and Z paragraph [0024] of translation), I(λ) denotes a light output spectrum (x ′ (λ), y ′ (λ), and z ′ (λ) are spectrum tristimulus values paragraph [0025] of translation), SR(λ), SG(λ), and SB(λ) denote the sensitivity spectrum (the luminous sensitivity characteristic E(λ) is multiplied paragraph [0027] of translation to the spectrum tristimulus values x ′ (λ), y ′ (λ), and z ′ (λ) in to get the know stimulus values X, Y and Z the equation paragraph [0025] of translation) of each of the R, G, and B (color separation pixels R,G B fig. 2).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to set the pitch to be optimized for efficiency and intensity as taught by Taniguchi in display system of Kress. Since it includes means for calculating the pass wavelength characteristic by weighting the diffraction efficiency and summing the light, and means for calculating at least one of chromaticity and luminance based on the calculated pass wavelength characteristic It eliminates the need for trial and error, which takes a lot of time and cost to actually make a CGH and make illumination light incident and evaluate the spectral characteristics of the hologram color filter obtained in the calculation (paragraph [0037] of translation).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yamauchi et al. (US 20210405274 A1) discloses a light modulation element with a diffraction efficiency.
Peng et al. (US 20230194866 A1) discloses a patterned light illuminator with a diffraction grating with sub pixels that have a pitch.
Koshelev et al. (US 20230014790 A1) discloses a waveguide illuminator with large color gamut.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW R WRIGHT whose telephone number is (703)756-5822. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30-5 Friday 8-12.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached at 1-571-270-1284. 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.
/ANDREW R WRIGHT/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/PINPING SUN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights