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 .
Remark
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s preliminary amendment filed on August 13, 2024, which has been entered into the file.
By this amendment, the applicant has amended claims 1, 20, has canceled claims 4, 14, 17-19, and has newly added claims 22-25.
Claims 1-3, 5-13, 15-16 and 20-25 remain pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-13, 15-16 ad 20-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claims 1 and 25 recite the phrase “generating stereoscopic images” however the claims fail to provide the enablement of generating stereoscopic images.
Claims 1 and 25 recite the phrase “deflecting, … a first portion of the input light beams … in a first direction toward second diffractive elements of the single multiplexed element”. The specification and the claims fail to teach how could the portion of the input light beams being possible to be deflected from the first diffractive element toward the second diffractive element while the first and second diffractive elements are of a single multiplexed elements. The term “multiplexed” is understood in the art as “superimposed on each other”. If the first and second diffractive elements are multiplexed in a single layer, they are superimposed upon each other which means it is impossible for the input light beam be deflected from the first diffractive element to the second diffractive element.
Claims 1 and 25 recite the phrase “deflecting … a first portion of the input light beams … propagating a second portion of the input light beams”. It is not clear what are these the first portion and second portion of the input light beams and it is not clear how these first portion and second portion of the input light beams be generated. It is not clear how or based on what property would the first diffractive element be capable of diffracting a first portion and a second portion of the input light beam differently? It is not clear how the first diffractive element is capable of splitting the input light beam into a first portion and a second portion?
The specification therefore is not enabling the claims.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-13, 15-16 and 20-24 are 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.
The phrase “the first and second diffractive elements and the second diffractive elements are arranged and recorded to form the single multiplexed element” and the phrase “multiplexing the first and second diffractive elements and the second diffractive elements of the single multiplexed element” recited in claim 1 that are confusing and indefinite since it is not clear what are the relationship of “first and second diffractive elements” to “the second diffractive elements”. It is not clear how does the “second diffractive elements” relate to “the second diffractive elements”.
The phrase “are multiplexed by performing an exclusive OR between the first diffractive element and the second diffractive element” recited in claims 20 and 22 are confusing and indefinite since multiplexing method is a physical method step for recording a diffractive element, where OR appears to be an abstract mathematical step. The scopes of the claims therefore are confusing. It is also not clear what considered to be “exclusive OR between the first diffractive element and the second diffractive element”.
The scopes of claim 23 is confusing and indefinite. It is not clear what considered to be the “phase ramp”, the “continuous polynomial form to a lens function” and “discretizing a binary structure”.
The scopes of the claims therefore are not clear and indefinite.
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) 1-3, 5-10, 15-16, and 20-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication by Weiss et al (US 2006/0132914 A1) in light of the US patent application publication by Wilson et al (US 2007/0127100 A1).
Weiss et al teaches, with regard to claim 1, a method for using an apparatus for generating stereoscopic images for a virtual reality that is comprised of identifying a single-layer structure (such as the light guide 422, please see Figures 8A and 16), fabricating an expander element on the single layer structure wherein the expander element combining different functionalities of a first diffractive elements (414 or 416, Figure 8A and 824 Figure 16) and a second diffractive elements (418 or 420, Figure 8A or 826 and 828, Figure 16), both the first diffractive elements and the second diffractive element are arranged side-by-side and coplanar manner on the single layer structure. The first diffractive elements comprises orthogonal pupil expansion diffractive elements or expanders comprising orthogonal pupil expansion structures, (OPE, 414 and/or 416, or 824), having a first predetermined diffraction efficiency and a first diffraction pattern comprising lines having a first orientation relative to a direction of propagating of the input light beams, (Weiss et al teaches that the line orientation for the first diffractive element 414 or 416 and 824 is at 45 degrees with respect to the propagation direction of the input beam, please see Figure 8A and paragraph [0227]). The second diffractive elements comprising exit pupil expansion (EPE) diffractive elements or expander exit pupil expansion structures, having a second predetermined diffraction efficiency and a second diffractive pattern comprising lines having a second orientation that is different from the first orientation, (please see Figure 8A and paragraph [0227], for the line orientation for exit pupil expander 826, 828 is 90 degrees with respect to the propagation direction).
Weiss et al further teaches the method comprises the step of generating by an input light source such as image projector (426 or 832) input light beams, and receiving at an in-coupling optical device (412 or 822) input light beams generated by the light source such that the in-coupling optical device directing input light beams toward the first diffractive element in the apparatus wherein the apparatus may be an eyepiece, (please see Figure 25). The input light beams received at the first diffractive elements is deflected by the first diffractive elements (414 and/or 416, or 824) such that a first portion of the input light beam comprising some of the input light beams in a first direction toward the second diffractive element (418 or 420, or 826) and propagating a second portion of the input light beams comprising some of the input light beams deflected by the first diffractive elements (414 and/or 416 or 824) through the second diffractive elements (418 or 420, or 828) and in a second direction. The first direction and second direction are different in the sense as shown in Figures 8A and 16, so that the light beams being directed to right eye and left eye respectively of a viewer. Weiss et al teaches stereoscopic view may be created provided that the first portion of the input light beam and the second portion of the input light beam each bearing a left eye stereo and a right eye stereo image information respectively.
This reference has met all the limitations of the claims. It however does not teach explicitly that the first and second diffractive elements are single multiplexed element on the single layer structure. This feature however is rejected under 35 USC 112, first paragraph for the reasons set forth above. In general, the multiplexed diffractive elements are formed in the same location of the recording medium. By doing so the input light deflected by the first diffractive element cannot be directed to the second diffractive element. Unless the two diffractive elements are spatially separated. Holographic gratings that are recorded in spatially multiplexed fashion are known in the art, as explicitly taught by Wilson et al, wherein spatially multiplex holographic gratings are formed by shifting the recording region on the recording layer, (please see Figure 2 and paragraph [0068]). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the art well known spatially multiplexing recording method as shown by Wilson et al to fabricate the first and second diffractive elements for the benefit of art well known recording method to form the elements.
With regard to claim 2, Weiss et al teaches that the first and second diffractive elements may comprise volume phase gratings, (please see paragraph [0081]).
With regard to claim 3, it is within general level of skill in the art to modulate the diffraction efficiencies of the diffractive optical elements to achieve the best image result.
With regard to claims 5 and 6, Weiss et al teaches that the diffractive elements include a host medium comprises photopolymer with the photopolymerization process is achieved by thermal curing which considering to be a dry-process, (please see paragraph [0092]).
With regard to claim 7, Weiss et al teaches that the expander element is formed on a single layer structure that comprises a waveguide, (422 or 830) which implicitly means that the guiding propagation of the input light beams from in-coupling optical element to the out-coupling element (or second diffractive element) is via total internal reflection.
With regard to claims 8 and 9, it is within general level skills in the art to modulating the diffraction efficiencies of the diffractive elements to achieve the desired image quality and operation efficiency. One skilled in the art has the basic knowledge that the diffraction efficiency is proportional to the intensities of the recording beams for recording the diffractive elements. It is therefore within general level of skill in the art to modulating the beam intensities of the recording beams to modulate or distributing the diffraction efficiencies of the diffractive elements to achieve the desired level of operation.
With regard to claim 10, Weiss et al teaches that the diffractive elements may comprise a volume phase grating (please see paragraph [0081]) which therefore does not use a surface-relief structure.
With regard to claims 15 and 16, Weiss et al teaches that the diffractive elements may either comprise a surface relief grating or a volume phase grating, (please see paragraph [0081]). The two types of diffractive grating are well known in the art; to combine both type of the diffractive gratings are considered to be obvious matters of choice to one skilled in the art for the benefit of combining the advantages of both types of diffractive element into one. Weiss et al teaches that the single layer structure comprises a light guide that typically is transparent layer that may include quartz crystal or glass which is dielectric material layer, (please see paragraph [0082]).
With regard to claims 20 and 22, the scopes of the claims are confusing and indefinite. The “exclusive OR” operation is generally known as a computer logic, if the first diffractive element and second diffractive element are computer generated, then since they are of different structure, an exclusive OR logic is implicitly included in the computer calculation process.
With regard to claim 21, Weiss et al teaches that the volumetric phase diffractive element may comprise hologram, (please see paragraph [0081]).
With regard to claim 23, the scopes of the claim are confusing and indefinite. The method of forming the diffractive element is not a method of using an apparatus for generating stereoscopic images. The method for forming the diffractive element therefore is considered to be product-by-process limitations that are not given patentable weight since it does not differentiate the final product of the diffractive element of the prior art.
With regard to claim 24, Weiss et al in light of Wilson et al teach that the first and second diffractive elements may be fabricated on a unitary inseparable layer.
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weiss et al and Wilson et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US patent issued to Robbins (PN. 10,192,358).
The method for using an apparatus for generating stereoscopic image taught by Weiss et al in combination with the teachings of Wilson et al as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claim 11, these references do not teach explicitly that the first diffractive element and/or the second diffractive element is switchable diffractive elements. Robbins in the same field of endeavor teaches an auto-stereoscopic augmented reality display wherein the out-coupling elements (204, Figure 2) is switchable Bragg grating (please see column 4, lines 30-35) wherein the different display zone (218 and 222) may be directed to left eye and right eye respectively via the switchable Bragg grating (204) to create auto-stereoscopic view. It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Robbins to alternatively use switchable diffractive elements so that left eye and right eye stereo image information may be projected in time-multiplexed manner to provide the auto-stereoscopic view.
With regard to claims 12 and 13, Robbins teaches that the switchable Bragg grating utilizes holographic polymer dispersed liquid crystal (PDLC), (please see column 4, lines 30-44). Robbins teaches that the when the switchable Bragg grating is switching on, the refractive index of the liquid crystal has a different refractive index than the waveguide or the substrate and light is diffracted by the switchable Bragg grating, (please see column 4, lines 40-44).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication by Weiss et al (US 2006/0132914 A1) in light of the US patent application publication by Wilson et al (US 2007/0127100 A1).
Weiss et al teaches, with regard to claim 25, a method for using an apparatus for generating stereoscopic images for a virtual reality that is comprised of identifying a single-layer structure (such as the light guide 422, please see Figures 8A and 16). Weiss et al teaches that the light guide may be a transparent layer including glass or quartz crystal which is a transparent dielectric medium, (please see paragraph [0082]).
The method further comprises fabricating an expander element on the single layer structure wherein the expander element combining different functionalities of a first diffractive elements (414 or 416, Figure 8A and 824 Figure 16) and a second diffractive elements (418 or 420, Figure 8A or 826 and 828, Figure 16), both the first diffractive elements and the second diffractive element are in coplanar manner on a unitary inseparable single layer. The first diffractive elements comprises orthogonal pupil expansion diffractive elements or expanders comprising orthogonal pupil expansion structures, (OPE, 414 and/or 416, or 824), having a first predetermined diffraction efficiency and a first diffraction pattern comprising lines having a first orientation relative to a direction of propagating of the input light beams, (Weiss et al teaches that the line orientation for the first diffractive element 414 or 416 and 824 is at 45 degrees with respect to the propagation direction of the input beam, please see Figure 8A and paragraph [0227]). The second diffractive elements comprising exit pupil expansion (EPE) diffractive elements or expander exit pupil expansion structures, having a second predetermined diffraction efficiency and a second diffractive pattern comprising lines having a second orientation that is different from the first orientation, (please see Figure 8A and paragraph [0227], for the line orientation for exit pupil expander 826, 828 is 90 degrees with respect to the propagation direction).
Weiss et al teaches that the diffractive elements include a host medium comprises photopolymer with the photopolymerization process is achieved by thermal curing which considering to be a dry-process, (please see paragraph [0092]).
Weiss et al further teaches the method comprises the step of generating by an input light source such as image projector (426 or 832) input light beams, and receiving at an in-coupling optical device (412 or 822) input light beams generated by the light source such that the in-coupling optical device directing input light beams toward the first diffractive element in the apparatus wherein the apparatus may be an eyepiece, (please see Figure 25). The input light beams received at the first diffractive elements is deflected by the first diffractive elements (414 and/or 416, or 824) such that a first portion of the input light beam comprising some of the input light beams in a first direction toward the second diffractive element (418 or 420, or 826) and propagating a second portion of the input light beams comprising some of the input light beams deflected by the first diffractive elements (414 and/or 416 or 824) through the second diffractive elements (418 or 420, or 828) and in a second direction. The first direction and second direction are different in the sense as shown in Figures 8A and 16, so that the light beams being directed to right eye and left eye respectively of a viewer. Weiss et al teaches stereoscopic view may be created provided that the first portion of the input light beam and the second portion of the input light beam each bearing a left eye stereo and a right eye stereo image information respectively.
This reference has met all the limitations of the claims. It however does not teach explicitly that the first and second diffractive elements are single multiplexed element on the single layer structure. This feature however is rejected under 35 USC 112, first paragraph for the reasons set forth above. In general, the multiplexed diffractive elements are formed in the same location of the recording medium. By doing so the input light deflected by the first diffractive element cannot be directed to the second diffractive element. Unless the two diffractive elements are spatially separated. Holographic gratings that are recorded in spatially multiplexed fashion are known in the art, as explicitly taught by Wilson et al, wherein spatially multiplex holographic gratings are formed by shifting the recording region on the recording layer, (please see Figure 2 and paragraph [0068]). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the art well known spatially multiplexing recording method as shown by Wilson et al to fabricate the first and second diffractive elements for the benefit of art well known recording method to form the elements.
Weiss et al teaches that the diffractive elements may either comprise a surface relief grating or a volume phase grating, (please see paragraph [0081]). The two types of diffractive grating are well known in the art; to combine both type of the diffractive gratings are considered to be obvious matters of choice to one skilled in the art for the benefit of combining the advantages of both types of diffractive element into one.
Weiss et al in light of Wilson et al teach that the first and second diffractive elements may be fabricated on a unitary inseparable layer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUDREY Y CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2309. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 9:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Stephone B Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
AUDREY Y. CHANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/AUDREY Y CHANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872