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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 22, 2026, has been entered.
Amendment
The Response, filed on September 22, 2026, has been received and made of record. In response to the Final Office Action dated June 22, 2026, claims 1, 19, 20, 22 and 30-32 have been amended. Claims 3-7, 11-13 and 19 were previously withdrawn. Claims 9, 15, 16, 24, 27 and 28 were previously cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection of claims 1, 2, 8, 10, 14, 17, 18, 20, 21 and 31, Applicant has amended the previous language of “wherein the first light redirecting element is configured to project a position of the image sensor onto the viewing position”, to now recite “wherein a light redirecting system is configured to project a position of the image sensor onto the viewing position”.
The claim language now conforms to what is provided by paragraph [0145] of the publication, that is:
“In some aspects, the light redirecting system is configured to project a position of the image sensor onto the viewing position. In some examples, at least one surface of the first light redirecting element provides optical power.”
In light of the above, the outstanding 35 U.S.C. 12(a) rejection of claims 1, 2, 8, 10, 14, 17, 18, 20, 21 and 31 is withdrawn.
It should be noted that, in light of the newly amended language and in view of the original disclosure as filed, in order for the “light redirecting system” “to project a position of the image sensor onto the viewing position” to be true, the image sensor must be located between the scene (first position) and viewing position (second position) in a manner that obstructs the view of the scene. It is important to note here that the disclosed light redirecting element/system of the specification has not been found to project, by means of reflection or redirection of light, a position of the image sensor to or onto the viewing position of the disclosure.
The claim language also requires a first light redirecting element positioned along the first optical axis, that the first light redirecting element is configured to redirect light from a portion of a scene toward a second optical axis, and wherein the light redirecting system comprises the first light redirecting element.
Per the claim language, the light redirecting system comprises the first light redirecting element, which is positioned along the first optical axis, and the first optical axis passes through a viewing plane of the display and intersects with a viewing position. If the image sensor is located between the scene (first position) and viewing position (second position) at or near the first optical axis, the then position of the image sensor would be projected onto the viewing position. The original disclosure is only found to fairly teach or disclose an elected embodiment which would allow for a position of the image sensor to be projected onto the viewing position, wherein the light redirecting element positioned along the first optical axis, wherein the first light redirecting element is configured to redirect light from a portion of a scene toward a second optical axis, and wherein the light redirecting system comprises the first light redirecting element, and that is the elected Sub Species A (figures 7A and 7B), in which the image sensor is integrated/attached to a surface of the light redirecting element, (see figures 7A and 7B; also see [0119-120]) and the light redirecting element is positioned along the first optical axis (see figure 6B; also see [0119-120] corresponding the light redirecting element implemented as a prism element).
The Office points out that only this elected Species II (figure 6B), Sub Species A (figures 7A and 7B) supports the recited claim language “wherein a light redirecting system is configured to project a position of the image sensor onto the viewing position, wherein the light redirecting element positioned along the first optical axis, wherein the first light redirecting element is configured to redirect light from a portion of a scene toward a second optical axis, and wherein the light redirecting system comprises the first light redirecting element:
PNG
media_image1.png
320
638
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
368
634
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to elected sub-species a (figure 10B), because both the image sensor 1055 and light redirecting element 1051 are each positioned along the first optical axis, the light redirecting element is not found to “redirect light from a portion of a scene toward a second optical axis”, as required by the claim language, and as disclosed and discussed in the specification as originally filed.
The Office also notes that the claim language of project a position of the image sensor onto the viewing position differs significantly from other instances in the specification in which the viewing position is projected onto the image sensor (e.g., [0113], [0117]), and in which the light redirecting system can project the viewing position onto the image sensor (e.g., [0134]).
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claims 1, 2, 8, 14, 17, 18, 21-23, 25, 26 and 29, Miyagawa is still found to fairly teach or disclose the newly added claim limitations of “wherein the portion of the scene is located at a first position and the viewing position is located at a second position” and “wherein a light redirecting system is configured to project a position of the image sensor onto the viewing position, and wherein the light redirecting system comprises the first light redirecting element.”
Specifically, Miyagawa teaches “wherein the portion of the scene is located at a first position and the viewing position is located at a second position” in that at least figure 3B allows a portion of the scene to be located to the right of the display 100 along an optical axis towards the light redirecting element 120, and a viewing position can be located further out to the right of the display 100 along the same optical axis towards the light redirecting element 120. Miyagawa also teaches “wherein a light redirecting system is configured to project a position of the image sensor onto the viewing position, and wherein the light redirecting system comprises the first light redirecting element” in that at least figure 3B provides a light redirecting element 120 that is a mirror ([0069]), and as the mirror would reflect from both directions (from a viewing position to an image sensor and from an image sensor to a viewing position), the light redirection system comprised of the light redirecting element 120 is configured to project, i.e., reflect, a position of the image sensor onto the viewing position (also see figure 3D, in which a portion of a scene to the right of display 100 an optical axis towards the light redirecting element 120 and a viewing position can be interpreted to be to the left of element 121 along the same optical axis). In light of the above, the Office stands behind the teachings of Miyagawa in the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection as applied to the currently presented claim language.
Applicant did argue that, first, that the scene and the viewing position cannot share the same location. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the scene and the viewing position cannot share the same location – Remarks, p. 9, and “that the portion of the scene and the viewing position do not share the same location and are distinct from one another” – Remarks, p. 10) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Further to this, based on the current claim language, the scene and the viewing position could also exist at/on two different positions along the optical axis. Second, applicant argues that “Figure 3D does not depict the reflection of the image sensor may be projected onto the viewing position” – Remarks, p. 10. However, regardless of the limited imagery depicted in the figure 3D, which is being relied by Applicant in their argument and that the draftsman may not have conceived that the figure could possibly be used for additional teachings related to this application, Applicant ignores the physical properties of a mirror (fig. 3D, element 120), i.e., reflection. If light can be reflected from one point to the image sensor via the mirror, then light can also be reflected from the image sensor in the opposite direction via the mirror. In light of the above, the Office does not find Applicant’s arguments persuasive and stands behind the teachings of Miyagawa in the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection as applied to the currently presented claim language.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claims 1, 2, 8, 14, 17, 18, 22, 23, 25, 26 and 29, Tanigaki is still found to fairly teach or disclose the newly added claim limitations of “wherein the portion of the scene is located at a first position and the viewing position is located at a second position” and “wherein a light redirecting system is configured to project a position of the image sensor onto the viewing position, and wherein the light redirecting system comprises the first light redirecting element.”
Specifically, Tanigaki teaches “wherein the portion of the scene is located at a first position and the viewing position is located at a second position” in that at least figure 6 allows a portion of the scene to be located to the left of the display 32a along an optical axis towards the light redirecting element 36, and a viewing position can be located further out to the left of the display 32a along the same optical axis towards the light redirecting element 36. Tanigaki also teaches “wherein a light redirecting system is configured to project a position of the image sensor onto the viewing position, and wherein the light redirecting system comprises the first light redirecting element” in that at least figure 6 provides a light redirecting element 36 that is a mirror (col. 3, line 3), and as the mirror would reflect from both directions (from a viewing position to an image sensor and from an image sensor to a viewing position), the light redirection system comprised of the light redirecting element 36 is configured to project, i.e., reflect, a position of the image sensor onto the viewing position. In light of the above, the Office stands behind the teachings of Tanigaki in the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection as applied to the currently presented claim language.
Applicant argues again in regards to the scene and viewing position (Remarks, p. 11, “As discussed above…”). In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the scene and the viewing position cannot share the same location – Remarks, p. 9, and “that the portion of the scene and the viewing position do not share the same location and are distinct from one another” – Remarks, p. 10) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Further to this, based on the current claim language, the scene and the viewing position could also exist at/on two different positions along the optical axis.
Applicant also argues that “Regarding Figure 6 of Tanigaki, there is no structural element or optical property establishing that the mirror 36 is configured to project a position of the image sensor section 41 onto the viewing position.” (Remarks, p. 11). The Office respectfully disagrees. A mirror has the optical property of reflection. Based on this optical property, if light can be reflected (projected) from one point to the image sensor via the mirror, then light can also be reflected (projected) from the image sensor in the opposite direction via the mirror. In light of the above, the Office does not find Applicant’s arguments persuasive and stands behind the teachings of Miyagawa in the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection as applied to the currently presented claim language.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claims 1, 14, 18, 20, 22, 26, 29 and 30, Inoue is still found to fairly teach or disclose the newly added claim limitations of “wherein the portion of the scene is located at a first position and the viewing position is located at a second position” and “wherein a light redirecting system is configured to project a position of the image sensor onto the viewing position, and wherein the light redirecting system comprises the first light redirecting element.”
Specifically, Inoue teaches “wherein the portion of the scene is located at a first position and the viewing position is located at a second position” in that at least figure 2 allows a portion of the scene to be located near or adjacent to the center of element 101 along optical axis x towards the light redirecting element 103, and a viewing position can be located at the center of element 101 along optical axis x. Inoue also teaches “wherein a light redirecting system is configured to project a position of the image sensor onto the viewing position, and wherein the light redirecting system comprises the first light redirecting element” in that at least figure 2 provides a light redirecting element 103 that is a mirror (col. 3, line 14), and as the mirror would reflect from both directions (from a viewing position to an image sensor and from an image sensor to a viewing position), the light redirection system comprised of the light redirecting element 103 is configured to project, i.e., reflect, a position of the image sensor onto the viewing position. In light of the above, the Office stands behind the teachings of Inoue in the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection as applied to the currently presented claim language.
Applicant also argues the purpose of the invention of Inoue (Remarks, p. 12, “Inoue’s system is directed to…”), not the functional, structural capabilities of the elements of Inoue, which includes bi-directional reflection of light vi a mirror. Based on the optical property of reflection, if light can be reflected (projected) from one point to the image sensor via the mirror, then light can also be reflected (projected) from the image sensor in the opposite direction via the mirror. In light of the above, the Office does not find Applicant’s argument persuasive and stands behind the teachings of Inoue in the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection as applied to the currently presented claim language.
Regarding the dependent claims, Applicant is not found to argue any of their merits individually, and instead relies on their dependence from an independent claim.
* * * * * *
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites “wherein a first optical path length between the first light redirecting element and the image sensor is configured to be equal to a second optical path length between the first light redirecting element and the viewing position.” However, based on the currently claimed subject matter, requiring a light redirecting element system is configured to project a position of the image sensor onto the viewing position, and wherein the light redirecting system comprises the first light redirecting element, the disclosure is not found to disclose or describe a species, elected or otherwise, “wherein a first optical path length between the first light redirecting element and the image sensor is configured to be equal to a second optical path length between the first light redirecting element and the viewing position.” See the response to arguments for the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection, supra, as it relates to the light redirecting system and teachings/embodiments of the disclosure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 32 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 32, the dependent claim recites the limitation “a display” in line 2. Independent claim 1, from which this claim depends, previously recited “a display” in line 2 of that claim. The dependent claim also recites “wherein the display is disposed…” Based on the current language, it is unclear which display is being referenced by the antecedent usage “the display”. Absent clarity, one skilled in the art would not be put on full and fair notice regarding the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter. Therefore, the claim is 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 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.
(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, 2, 8, 14, 17, 18, 20-23, 25, 26, 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0257473 to Miyagawa.
Regarding claim 1, Miyagawa teaches an optical system comprising a display (e.g., fig. 3B, element 100; [0069], display panel) positioned along a first optical axis (e.g., fig. 3B, optical axis passes through the display 100 and is perpendicular to the display 100), wherein the first optical axis passes through a viewing plane of the display and intersects with a viewing position (e.g., fig. 3B, optical axis passes through the display 100 and intersect with a viewing position of the display 100), a first light redirecting element (e.g., fig. 3B, element 120; [0069], mirror) positioned along the first optical axis (e.g., fig. 3B), wherein the first light redirecting element is configured to redirect light from a portion of a scene toward a second optical axis (e.g., fig. 3B, light is redirected by mirror 120 toward element 111; the portion of the scene can also be on the optical axis along with the viewing position), wherein the portion of the scene is located at a first position and the viewing position is located at a second position (e.g., fig. 3B allows a portion of the scene to be located to the right of the display 100 along an optical axis towards the light redirecting element 120, and a viewing position can be located out to the right of the display 100, but closer, along the same optical axis towards the light redirecting element 120), and an image sensor (e.g. fig. 3B, element 111; [0069], image pickup means), wherein the image sensor is configured to receive the light from the portion of the scene (e.g., fig. 3B) and wherein the first light redirecting element is included along an optical path between the portion of the scene and the image sensor (e.g., fig. 3B, mirror 120 is in the optical path between viewing position/portion of the scene being captured and element 111), wherein a light redirecting system is configured to project a position of the image sensor onto the viewing position (e.g., fig. 3B, wherein the portion of the scene and the viewing position can be along the first optical axis, and the redirecting element reflects from both directions; or alternatively, fig. 3D, when the mirror is actuated to face a viewing position beyond element 121 and portion of a scene associated beyond the viewing position, the reflection of the image sensor may be projected onto the viewing position, and the redirecting element reflects from both directions), and wherein the light redirecting system comprises the first light redirecting element (e.g., fig. 3B, element 120). The Examiner notes that the apparatus claim is limited to three structural elements, a display, a first light redirecting element and an image sensor.
Regarding claim 2, Miyagawa teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) including teaching wherein the display is positioned between the viewing position and the image sensor (e.g., fig. 3B).
Regarding claim 8, Miyagawa teaches all of the limitations of claim 8 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) including teaching wherein a first optical path length between the first light redirecting element and the image sensor is configured to be equal to a second optical path length between the first light redirecting element and the viewing position (e.g., fig. 3B; the Examiner notes that the viewing position is not a structural element of the apparatus, and its location can be variable, including a location establishing a second optical path of equal length to the first optical path length).
Regarding claim 14, Miyagawa teaches all of the limitations of claim 14 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) including teaching wherein the viewing position corresponds to a distance from the display along the first optical axis (e.g., fig. 3B; [0019], [0069]; the viewing position is not a structurally defined limitation of the apparatus, and therefore can be a variable distance).
Regarding claim 17, Miyagawa teaches all of the limitations of claim 17 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) including teaching wherein the display is opaque in a visible light spectrum (e.g., [0069]; the display will not be completely invisible when viewed in a visible light spectrum).
Regarding claim 18, Miyagawa teaches all of the limitations of claim 18 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) including teaching wherein the display is at least partially transmissive in a visible light spectrum (e.g., [0069]; light transmissive pixels).
Regarding claim 20, Miyagawa teaches all of the limitations of claim 20 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) including teaching wherein the first light redirecting element is configured to focus the light from the portion of the scene on the image sensor (e.g., fig. 3B, the light from the portion of the image scene is directed to be captured by the image sensor, i.e., focused; the Examiner notes that specific optical power properties are not recited or required in the claim).
Regarding claim 21, Miyagawa teaches all of the limitations of claim 21 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) including teaching the optical system further comprising at least one of a motor, an actuator (e.g., [0070]), or a piezoelectric component configured to adjust an optical path length between the first light redirecting element and the image sensor (e.g., fig. 3B; [0070], length adjusted during movement).
Regarding claim 22, Miyagawa teaches a method for redirecting light, the method comprising obtaining, at a first light redirecting element (e.g., fig. 3B, element 120; [0069], mirror) positioned along a first optical axis (e.g., fig. 3B, optical axis passes through the display 100 and is perpendicular to the display 100), light from a portion of a scene (e.g., 3B, wherein the scene can be on the side of the apparatus as element 100; or alternatively, on the side of the apparatus as element 121), wherein a viewing position is associated with a first optical path length (e.g., the viewing position is not structurally defined, and thus can be variable in length), wherein the portion of the scene is located at a first position and the viewing position is located at a second position (e.g., fig. 3B allows a portion of the scene to be located to the right of the display 100 along an optical axis towards the light redirecting element 120, and a viewing position can be located to the right of the display 100, but closer, along the same optical axis towards the light redirecting element 120), and wherein the first optical path length is associated with light passing through the first light redirecting element along the first optical axis (e.g., fig. 3B), redirecting, by the first light redirecting element, the light from the portion of the scene toward a second optical axis (e.g., fig. 3B, see dashed lines indicating redirection/reflection downward), wherein the a light redirecting system is configured to project a position of an image sensor onto the viewing position (e.g., fig. 3B, wherein the scene and the viewing position share the same location; or alternatively, fig. 3D, when the mirror is actuated to face a viewing position associated with element 121, the reflection of the image sensor may be projected onto the viewing position), and wherein the light redirecting system comprises the first light redirecting element (e.g., fig. 3B, element 120), and capturing, by the image sensor, the light from the portion of the scene (e.g., fig. 3B; fig. 3D), wherein the image sensor is associated with a second optical path length (e.g., fig. 3B; fig. 3D), and wherein the second optical path length is associated with light redirected by the first light redirecting element toward the second optical axis (e.g., fig. 3B; fig. 3D), the second optical path length being equal to the first optical path length (e.g., fig. 3B or fig. 3D; as neither the optical paths nor the viewing position are structurally defined, the optical paths are variable, and therefore the lengths may result in equality; also, the term “associated with” only requires a minimal association).
Regarding claim 23, Miyagawa teaches all of the limitations of claim 23 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 22 supra) including teaching wherein a first optical path length between the first light redirecting element and the image sensor is configured to be equal to a second optical path length between the first light redirecting element and the viewing position (e.g., fig. 3B; the Examiner notes that the viewing position is not a structural element of the apparatus, and its location can be variable, including a location establishing a second optical path of equal length to the first optical path length).
Regarding claim 25, Miyagawa teaches all of the limitations of claim 25 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 22, supra) including teaching wherein at least one surface of the first light redirecting element provides optical power (e.g., fig. 3B; [0069], element 120 is a mirror, which will possess some degree of optical power, the optical power of a mirror is a measure of its ability to redirect light).
Regarding claim 26, Miyagawa teaches all of the limitations of claim 26 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 22, supra) including teaching wherein the viewing position corresponds to a distance from the display along the first optical axis (e.g., fig. 3B; [0019], [0069]; the viewing position is not a structurally defined limitation of the apparatus, and therefore can be a variable distance).
Regarding claim 29, Miyagawa teaches all of the limitations of claim 29 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 26, supra) including teaching wherein the display is at least partially transmissive in a visible light spectrum (e.g., [0069]; light transmissive pixels).
Regarding claim 30, Miyagawa teaches all of the limitations of claim 30 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 22, supra) including teaching wherein the first light redirecting element is configured to focus the light from the portion of the scene on the image sensor (e.g., fig. 3B, the light from the portion of the image scene is directed to be captured by the image sensor, i.e., focused; the Examiner notes that specific optical power properties are not recited or required in the claim).
Claims 1, 2, 8, 14, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,406,323 to Tanigaki et al. (hereinafter “Tanigaki”).
Regarding claim 1, Tanigaki teaches an optical system comprising a display (e.g., fig. 6, element 32a) positioned along a first optical axis (e.g., fig. 6), wherein the first optical axis passes through a viewing plane of the display and intersects with a viewing position (e.g., fig. 6), a first light redirecting element (e.g., fig. 6, element 36; col. 5, lines 9-19) positioned along the first optical axis (e.g., fig. 6), wherein the first light redirecting element is configured to redirect light from a portion of a scene toward a second optical axis (e.g., fig. 6; col. 5, lines 9-19), wherein the portion of the scene is located at a first position and the viewing position is located at a second position (e.g.,
fig. 6 allows a portion of the scene to be located to the left of the display 32a along an optical axis towards the light redirecting element 36, and a viewing position can also be located to the left of the display 32a, but closer, along the same optical axis towards the light redirecting element 36) and an image sensor (e.g., fig. 6, element 41; col. 3, lines 30-34), wherein the image sensor is configured to receive the light from the portion of the scene and wherein the first light redirecting element is included along an optical path between the portion of the scene and the image sensor (e.g., fig. 6),
wherein a light redirecting system is configured to project a position of the image sensor onto the viewing position (e.g., fig. 6 provides a light redirecting element 36 that is a mirror, and as the mirror would reflect from both directions; from a viewing position to an image sensor and from an image sensor to a viewing position; the light redirection system comprised of the light redirecting element 36 is configured to project, i.e., reflect, a position of the image sensor onto the viewing position), wherein the light redirection system comprises the first light redirecting element (e.g., fig. 6, element 36).
Regarding claim 2, Tanigaki teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) including teaching wherein the display is positioned between the viewing position and the image sensor (e.g., fig. 6).
Regarding claim 8, Tanigaki teaches all of the limitations of claim 8 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) including teaching wherein a first optical path length between the first light redirecting element and the image sensor is configured to be equal to a second optical path length between the first light redirecting element and the viewing position (e.g., fig. 6; the Examiner notes that the viewing position is not a structural element of the apparatus, and its location can be variable, including a location establishing a second optical path of equal length to the first optical path length).
Regarding claim 14, Tanigaki teaches all of the limitations of claim 14 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) including teaching wherein the viewing position corresponds to a distance from the display along the first optical axis (e.g., fig. 6; the viewing position is not a structurally defined limitation of the apparatus, and therefore can be a variable distance).
Regarding claim 17, Tanigaki teaches all of the limitations of claim 17 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) including teaching wherein the display is opaque in a visible light spectrum (e.g., fig. 6, element 32a; the display will not be completely invisible when viewed in a visible light spectrum).
Regarding claim 18, Tanigaki teaches all of the limitations of claim 18 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) including teaching wherein the display is at least partially transmissive in a visible light spectrum (e.g., fig. 6, element 32a).
Regarding claim 20, Tanigaki teaches all of the limitations of claim 20 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) including teaching wherein the first light redirecting element is configured to focus the light from the portion of the scene on the image sensor (e.g., fig. 6, the light from the portion of the image scene is directed to be captured by the image sensor, i.e., focused; the Examiner notes that specific optical power properties are not recited or required in the claim).
Regarding claim 22, Tanigaki teaches a method for redirecting light, the method comprising obtaining, at a first light redirecting element (e.g., fig. 6, element 36; col. 5, lines 9-19) positioned along a first optical axis, light from a portion of a scene (e.g., fig. 6), wherein a viewing position is associated with a first optical path length (e.g., fig. 6), wherein the portion of the scene is located at a first position and the viewing position is located at the second position (e.g., fig. 6 allows a portion of the scene to be located to the left of the display 32a along an optical axis towards the light redirecting element 36, and a viewing position can also be located to the left of the display 32a, but closer, along the same optical axis towards the light redirecting element 36), and wherein the first optical path length is associated with light passing through the first light redirecting element along the first optical axis (e.g., fig. 6), redirecting, by the first light redirecting element, the light from the portion of the scene toward a second optical axis (e.g., fig. 6, downward), wherein a light redirecting system is configured to project a position of an image sensor onto the viewing position (e.g., fig. 6 provides a light redirecting element 36 that is a mirror, and as the mirror would reflect from both directions, from a viewing position to an image sensor and from an image sensor to a viewing position, the light redirection system comprised of the light redirecting element 36 is configured to project, i.e., reflect, a position of the image sensor onto the viewing position), wherein the light redirecting system comprises the first light redirecting element (e.g., fig. 6, element 36), and capturing, by the image sensor (e.g., fig. 6, element 41; col. 3, lines 30-34), the light from the scene, wherein the image sensor is associated with a second optical path length (e.g., fig. 6), and wherein the second optical path length is associated with light redirected by the first light redirecting element toward the second optical axis (e.g., fig. 6), the second optical path length being equal to the first optical path length (e.g., fig. 6, as neither the optical paths nor the viewing position are structurally defined, the optical paths are variable, and therefore the lengths may result in equality; also, the term “associated with” only requires a minimal association).
Regarding claim 23, Tanigaki teaches all of the limitations of claim 23 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 22, supra) including teaching wherein a first optical path length between the first light redirecting element and the image sensor is configured to be equal to a second optical path length between the first light redirecting element and the viewing position (e.g., fig. 6; the Examiner notes that the viewing position is not a structural element of the apparatus, and its location can be variable, including a location establishing a second optical path of equal length to the first optical path length).
Regarding claim 25, Tanigaki teaches all of the limitations of claim 25 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 22, supra) including teaching wherein at least one surface of the first light redirecting element provides optical power (e.g., fig. 6; col. 3, lines 30-34 element 36 is a mirror, which will possess some degree of optical power, the optical power of a mirror is a measure of its ability to redirect light).
Regarding claim 26, Tanigaki teaches all of the limitations of claim 26 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 22, supra) including teaching wherein the viewing position corresponds to a distance from the display along the first optical axis (e.g., fig. 6; the viewing position is not a structurally defined limitation of the apparatus, and therefore can be a variable distance).
Regarding claim 29, Tanigaki teaches all of the limitations of claim 29 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 26, supra) including teaching wherein the display is at least partially transmissive in a visible light spectrum (e.g., fig. 6, element 32a).
Regarding claim 30, Tanigaki teaches all of the limitations of claim 30 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 22, supra) including teaching wherein the first light redirecting element is configured to focus the light from the portion of the scene on the image sensor (e.g., fig. 6, the light from the portion of the image scene is directed to be captured by the image sensor, i.e., focused; the Examiner notes that specific optical power properties are not recited or required in the claim).
Claims 1, 14, 18, 20, 22, 26, 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,712,684 to Inoue et al. (hereinafter “Inoue”).
Regarding claim 1, Inoue teaches an optical system comprising a display (e.g., fig. 2, element 102) positioned along a first optical axis (e.g., fig. 2, optical axis X), wherein the first optical axis passes through a viewing plane of the display and intersects with a viewing position (e.g., fig. 2, optical axis X intersect with pupil 106), a first light redirecting element (e.g., fig. 2, half-mirror 103) positioned along the first optical axis (e.g., fig. 2), wherein the first light redirecting element is configured to redirect light from a portion of a scene toward a second optical axis (e.g., fig. 2, light from near pupil redirected toward element 113), wherein the portion of the scene is located at a first position and the viewing position is located at a second position (e.g., fig. 2 allows a portion of the scene to be located beyond or adjacent to the center of element 101 along/near optical axis x towards the light redirecting element 103, and a viewing position can be located at the center of element 101 along optical axis x), and an image sensor (e.g. fig. 2, element 113), wherein the image sensor is configured to receive the light from the scene (e.g., fig. 2) and wherein the first light redirecting element is included along an optical path between the portion of the scene and the image sensor (e.g., fig. 2, half-mirror is in the optical path between pupil and element 113), wherein a light redirecting system is configured to project a position of the image sensor onto the viewing position (e.g., fig. 2 provides a light redirecting element 103 that is a mirror, and as the mirror would reflect from both direction, from a viewing position to an image sensor and from an image sensor to a viewing position, the light redirection system comprised of the light redirecting element 103 is configured to project, i.e., reflect, a position of the image sensor onto the viewing position), and wherein the light redirecting system comprises the first light redirecting element (e.g., fig. 2, half-mirror 103).
Regarding claim 14, Inoue teaches all of the limitations of claim 14 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) including teaching wherein the viewing position corresponds to a distance from the display along the first optical axis (e.g., fig. 2).
Regarding claim 18, Inoue teaches all of the limitations of claim 18 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) including teaching wherein the display is at least partially transmissive in a visible light spectrum (e.g., col. 3, lines 10-12).
Regarding claim 20, Inoue teaches all of the limitations of claim 20 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) including teaching wherein the first light redirecting element is configured to focus the light from the scene on the image sensor (e.g., fig. 2, in that it is configured to direct light in alignment with a lens that focuses light onto the image sensor, and misalignment would not allow for the focus).
Regarding claim 22, Inoue teaches a method for redirecting light, the method comprising obtaining, at a first light redirecting element (e.g., fig. 2, half-mirror 103) positioned along a first optical axis (e.g., fig. 2, optical axis X), light from a portion of a scene (e.g., fig. 2, beyond pupil 106), wherein a viewing position is associated with a first optical path length (e.g., fig. 2, pupil 106; the Examiner notes that the term “associated with” a first optical path length is exceptionally broad and does not define a specific length, and can therefore allow the determination to be any length along that path), wherein the portion of the scene is located at a first position and the viewing position is located at a second position (e.g., fig. 2 allows a portion of the scene to be located beyond or adjacent to the center of element 101 along/near optical axis x towards the light redirecting element 103, and a viewing position can be located at the center of element 101 along optical axis x), and wherein the first optical path length is associated with (again, the Examiner notes that the term “associated with” to be exceptional broad) light passing through the first light redirecting element along the first optical axis (e.g., fig. 2), redirecting, by the first light redirecting element, the light from the portion of the scene toward a second optical axis (e.g., fig. 2, light redirected by element 103 towards element 113), wherein a light redirecting system is configured to project a position of an image sensor onto the viewing position (e.g., figure 2 provides a light redirecting element 103 that is a mirror, and as the mirror would reflect from both directions, from a viewing position to an image sensor and from an image sensor to a viewing position, the light redirection system comprised of the light redirecting element 103 is configured to project, i.e., reflect, a position of the image sensor onto the viewing position), and wherein the light redirecting system comprises the first light redirecting element (e.g., fig. 2, half-mirror 103), and capturing, by the image sensor, the light from the scene (e.g., fig. 2, element 113), wherein the image sensor is associated with a second optical path length (e.g., fig. 2), and wherein the second optical path length is associated with light redirected by the first light redirecting element toward the second optical axis (e.g., fig. 2, pupil 106; the Examiner notes that the term “associated with” a second optical path length is exceptionally broad and does not define a specific length, and can therefore allow the determination to be any length along that path), the second optical path length being equal to the first optical path length (e.g., selectable matching lengths based on “associated with” terminology).
Regarding claim 26, Inoue teaches all of the limitations of claim 26 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 22, supra) including teaching wherein the viewing position corresponds to a distance from a display along the first optical axis (e.g., fig. 2).
Regarding claim 29, Inoue teaches all of the limitations of claim 29 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 26, supra) including teaching wherein the display is at least partially transmissive in a visible light spectrum (e.g., col. 3, lines 10-12).
Regarding claim 30, Inoue teaches all of the limitations of claim 30 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 26, supra) including teaching wherein the first light redirecting element is configured to focus the light from the scene on the image sensor (e.g., fig. 2, in that it is configured to direct light in alignment with a lens that focuses light onto the image sensor, and misalignment would not allow for the focus).
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 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyagawa in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0151092 to Vilcovski.
Regarding claim 31, Miyagawa teaches all of the limitations of claim 29 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 26, supra) except for being found by the Examiner to expressly disclose the optical system further comprising a memory, and one or more processors coupled to the memory and configured to display images of the portion of the scene captured by the image sensor on the display.
Nevertheless, Vilcovski teaches a similar system that includes a memory (e.g., fig. 1, element 123; [0043]) and one or more processors coupled to the memory (e.g., fig. 1, element 121; [0044]) and configured to display images of the portion of a scene captured by an image sensor on a display (e.g., fig. 1; [0029]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Vilcovski with the system as taught by Miyagawa so that a user could evaluate their direct-on appearance in a minimal-to-no offset presentation.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanigaki in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0151092 to Vilcovski.
Regarding claim 31, Tanigaki teaches all of the limitations of claim 29 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 26, supra) except for being found by the Examiner to expressly disclose the optical system further comprising a memory, and one or more processors coupled to the memory and configured to display images of the portion of the scene captured by the image sensor on the display.
Nevertheless, Vilcovski teaches a similar system that includes a memory (e.g., fig. 1, element 123; [0043]) and one or more processors coupled to the memory (e.g., fig. 1, element 121; [0044]) and configured to display images of the portion of a scene captured by an image sensor on a display (e.g., fig. 1; [0029]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Vilcovski with the system as taught by Tanigaki so that a user could evaluate their direct-on appearance in a minimal-to-no offset presentation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is 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 the base claim and any intervening claims.
Please see the response to arguments for the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection, supra, as it relates to the light redirecting system and the specific elected embodiments of the disclosure.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY C VIEAUX whose telephone number is (571)272-7318. The examiner can normally be reached Increased Flex.
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, Lin Ye can be reached at 571-272-7372. 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.
/GARY C VIEAUX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2638 8
