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 .
Interview
An interview was conducted with Applicant on May 12, 2026. The Examiner notes that the proposed amendment, see Interview Attachment, was not formally submitted in response to the Non-Final Office Action dated February 19, 2026.
Amendment
The Response, filed on May 19, 2026, has been received and made of record. In response to the Non-Final Office Action dated February 19, 2026, claims 1, 8, 10, 14, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 29 and 30 have been amended, claims 9, 15, 16, 24, 27 and 28 have been cancelled, and claims 31 and 32 have been newly added. Claims 3-7, 11-13 and 19 were previously withdrawn.
Response to Amendment
Regarding the objection to claim 23, Applicant has amended the claim to address the previously identified informality. Therefore, the outstanding objection to claim 23 is withdrawn.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 9 and 10, Applicant has cancelled claim 9 to address the previously identified indefinite subject matter. Therefore, the outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 9 and 10 is withdrawn.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 15, Applicant has cancelled claim 15 to address the previously identified indefinite subject matter. Therefore, the outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 15 is withdrawn.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 20, Applicant has amended the claim to address the previously identified indefinite subject matter. Therefore, the outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 20 is withdrawn.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 27, Applicant has cancelled claim 27 to address the previously identified indefinite subject matter. Therefore, the outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 27 is withdrawn.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 30, Applicant has amended the claim to address the previously identified indefinite subject matter. Therefore, the outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 30 is withdrawn.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejection of claims 14-16, Applicant has amended claim 14 and cancelled claims 15 and 16. Therefore, the outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejection of claims 14-16 is withdrawn.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejection of claims 26-28, Applicant has amended claim 26 and cancelled claims 27 and 28. Therefore, the outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejection of claims 26-28 is withdrawn.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claims 1, 2, 8-10, 14-18 and 21-29, Applicant submits that the Miyagawa reference fails to “describe all features of the amended claim 1.” (Remarks, p. 10). Specifically, Applicant submits that Miyagawa and Tanigaki fails to describe "a first light redirecting element positioned along the first optical axis, wherein the first light redirecting element is configured to redirect light from a scene toward a second optical axis," and "an image sensor, wherein the image sensor is configured to receive the light from the scene and wherein the first light redirecting element is included along an optical path between the scene and the image sensor, wherein the first light redirecting element is configured to project a position of the image sensor onto the viewing position," (amendments emphasized) as recited in amended claim 1. (Remarks, p. 12). The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Based on the claims as currently presented, Miyagawa teaches a first light redirecting element (e.g., fig. 3B, element 120; [0069], mirror) positioned along the first optical axis (e.g., fig. 3B, optical axis passes through the display 100 and is perpendicular to the display 100), wherein the first light redirecting element is configured to redirect light from a scene toward a second optical axis (e.g., fig. 3B, light is redirected by mirror 120 toward element 111), as well as teaches 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 scene (e.g., fig. 3B) and wherein the first light redirecting element is included along an optical path between the scene and the image sensor (e.g., fig. 3B), wherein the first light redirecting element is configured to project a position of the image sensor onto the viewing position (e.g., fig. 3B, wherein the scene and the viewing position can share the same location, and the redirecting element reflects from both directions; 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 the redirecting element reflects from both directions). Therefore, in view of at least the above, the Miyagawa reference can still be read on at least independent claim 1, and similarly on at least independent method claim 22 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 22, infra), as currently presented. The Examiner notes that the dependent claims have not been argued on their individual merits, but instead on their dependency from either independent claim 1 or independent claim 22. Therefore, the Examiner stands behinds the teachings of the prior art as presented.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claims 1, 2, 8-10, 14-18, 20 and 22-30,
Applicant submits that the Tanigaki reference fails to “describe all features of the amended claim 1.” (Remarks, p. 10). Specifically, Applicant submits that Miyagawa and Tanigaki fails to describe "a first light redirecting element positioned along the first optical axis, wherein the first light redirecting element is configured to redirect light from a scene toward a second optical axis," and "an image sensor, wherein the image sensor is configured to receive the light from the scene and wherein the first light redirecting element is included along an optical path between the scene and the image sensor, wherein the first light redirecting element is configured to project a position of the image sensor onto the viewing position," (amendments emphasized) as recited in amended claim 1. (Remarks, p. 12). The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Based on the claims as currently presented, Tanigaki teaches a first light redirecting element (e.g., e.g., fig. 6, element 36; col. 5, lines 9-19) positioned along the first optical axis (e.g., fig. 6, the axis, that when reflected, would result in striking the image sensor 41), wherein the first light redirecting element is configured to redirect light from a scene toward a second optical axis (e.g., fig. 6; col. 5, lines 9-19), as well as teaches an image sensor (e.g. fig.6, image sensor 41), wherein the image sensor is configured to receive the light from the scene (e.g., fig. 6) and wherein the first light redirecting element is included along an optical path between the scene and the image sensor (e.g., fig. 6, the optical path through the display and reflected to strike the image sensor), wherein the first light redirecting element is configured to project a position of the image sensor onto the viewing position (e.g., fig. 6, wherein the scene and the viewing position can share the same location, and the redirecting element reflects from both directions). Therefore, in view of at least the above, the Tanigaki reference can still be read on at least independent claim 1, and similarly on at least independent method claim 22 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 22, infra), as currently presented. The Examiner notes that the dependent claims have not been argued on their individual merits, but instead on their dependency from either independent claim 1 or independent claim 22. Therefore, the Examiner stands behinds the teachings of the prior art as presented.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 20 and 30, Applicant's arguments, in view of the most recent amendments to the claims, have been fully considered and are found to be persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 20 and 30 is withdrawn.
* * * * * * *
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.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 10, 14, 17, 18, 20-23, 25, 26 and 29-32 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 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 claims 1, 2, 8, 10, 14, 17, 18, 20, 21 and 31, independent claim 1 and claims 2, 8, 10, 14, 17, 18, 20, 21 and 31, which depend and inherit all limitations therefrom, recites “wherein the first light redirecting element is configured to project a position of the image sensor onto the viewing position.” Applicant has indicated paragraphs [0107]-[0113] of the publication for support of the elected species (Remarks, p. 8). However, neither the indicated passages nor the remainder of the specification has been found to disclose “wherein the first light redirecting element is configured to project a position of the image sensor onto the viewing position.”
Although a light redirecting element can generally reflect/project light in two opposing directions, the claimed light redirecting element of the elected species is found to redirect light from a scene, which is then received by the image sensor (see independent claims 1 and 22), this would also imply that light from the image sensor could also be redirected, reflected, or projected to the scene (i.e., reflection/projection from opposing direction – light reflected between scene and sensor, and vice versa). However, the claim, as currently amended, recites that the first light redirecting element is configured to project a position of the image sensor onto the viewing position (again, see independent claims 1 and 22). This is not disclosed in combination with a light redirecting element of the elected species that redirects light from a scene, which is then received by the image sensor (see independent claims 1 and 22; scene and sensor).
The disclosure has only been found to support the light redirecting element projecting the respective viewing position onto the position of the respective image sensor (e.g., [0113], publication), which is incongruent with the previously recited light redirecting element directing light from a scene and the light from the scene being received by the image sensor. In view of at least the above, the claims contain 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 claims 22, 23, 25, 26, 29, 30 and 32, independent claim 22 and claims 23, 25, 26, 29, 30 and 32, which depend and inherit all limitations therefrom, recites “wherein the first light redirecting element is configured to project a position of the image sensor onto the viewing position.” Applicant has indicated paragraphs [0107]-[0113] of the publication for support of the elected species (Remarks, p. 8). However, neither the indicated passages nor the remainder of the specification has been found to disclose “wherein the first light redirecting element is configured to project a position of the image sensor onto the viewing position.”
Although a light redirecting element can generally reflect/project light in two opposing directions, the light redirecting element of the elected species is found to redirect light from a scene, which is then received by the image sensor (see independent claims 1 and 22), this would also imply that light from the image sensor could also be redirected, reflected, or projected to the scene (i.e., reflection/projection from opposing direction – light reflected between scene and sensor, and vice versa). However, the claim, as currently amended, recites that the first light redirecting element is configured to project a position of the image sensor onto the viewing position (again, see independent claims 1 and 22). This is not disclosed in combination with a light redirecting element of the elected species that redirects light from a scene, which is then received by the image sensor (see independent claims 1 and 22; scene and sensor).
The disclosure has only been found to support the light redirecting element projecting the respective viewing position onto the position of the respective image sensor (e.g., [0113], publication), which is incongruent with the previously recited light redirecting element directing light from a scene and the light from the scene being received by the image sensor. In view of at least the above, the claims contain 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.
Per MPEP §2163.06 (I)., the claims will be examined on their merits as currently claimed.
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, 21-23, 25, 26 and 29 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 scene toward a second optical axis (e.g., fig. 3B, light is redirected by mirror 120 toward element 111; the scene can share the same location as the viewing position), 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 scene (e.g., fig. 3B) and wherein the first light redirecting element is included along an optical path between the scene and the image sensor (e.g., fig. 3B, mirror 120 is in the optical path between viewing position/scene being captured and element 111), wherein the first light redirecting element is configured to project a position of the image sensor onto the viewing position (e.g., fig. 3B, wherein the scene and the viewing position can share the same location, and the redirecting element reflects from both directions; 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 the redirecting element reflects from both directions).
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 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 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), 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 scene toward a second optical axis (e.g., fig. 3B, see dashed lines indicating redirection/reflection downward), wherein the first light redirecting element 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 capturing, by the image sensor, the light from 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 22, supra) including teaching wherein the display is at least partially transmissive in a visible light spectrum (e.g., [0069]; light transmissive pixels).
Claims 1, 2, 8, 14, 17, 18, 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 scene toward a second optical axis (e.g., fig. 6; col. 5, lines 9-19), 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 scene and wherein the first light redirecting element is included along an optical path between the scene and the image sensor (e.g., fig. 6), wherein the first light redirecting element is configured to project a position of the image sensor onto the viewing position (e.g., fig. 6, wherein the scene and the viewing position can share the same location, and the redirecting element reflects from both directions).
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 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 scene display (e.g., fig. 6), wherein a viewing position is associated with a first optical path length (e.g., fig. 6), 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 scene toward a second optical axis (e.g., fig. 6, downward), wherein the first light redirecting element is configured to project a position of an image sensor onto the viewing position (e.g., fig. 6, wherein the scene and the viewing position can share the same location, and the redirecting element reflects from both directions), 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 22, supra) including teaching wherein the display is at least partially transmissive in a visible light spectrum (e.g., fig. 6, element 32a).
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 scene toward a second optical axis (e.g., fig. 2, light from pupil redirected toward element 113), 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 scene and the image sensor (e.g., fig. 2, half-mirror is in the optical path between pupil and element 113), wherein the first light redirecting element is configured to project a position of the image sensor onto the viewing position (e.g., fig 2, element 113 can also project back to pupil via half-mirror).
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 scene (e.g., fig. 2, 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), 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 scene toward a second optical axis (e.g., fig. 2, light redirected by element 103 towards element 113), wherein the first light redirecting element is configured to project a position of an image sensor onto the viewing position (e.g., fig 2, element 113 can also project back to pupil via half-mirror), 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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0012107 to Greenberg teaches a similar light redirecting system.
Japanese Patent Publication No. 2001-133725 to Tagaki teaches a similar light redirecting system.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights