DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1–22 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.
Regarding Claim 1 (and Claims 2–22 in view of their dependence therefrom) the term “per color” is unclear because it is unclear how many colors are required.
The terms “the ratio of luminous intensity” and “the luminous intensity of the narrow-band light” near the end of the claim lack antecedent basis.
The term “spatial light modulator” is later abbreviated in Claims 19 and 20 as SLM; Claim 1 should include the abbreviation after its first introduction in parenthesis.
Appropriate clarification and correction are required.
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 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 15–18, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0109363 to Lyubarsky in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0103441 to Wang et al.
Regarding Claim 1, Lyubarsky discloses (e.g., referring to Fig. 2 and its corresponding description) a light-field image projection system (100) comprising: a light source 110; a spatial light modulator 114 configured to generate a modulated beam light and a virtual image for each incident light beam (e.g., paragraph [0032]); and a combiner 106 configured to project the virtual images at virtual viewpoints within an eye box region and to transmit natural light from the real world towards the eye box (Fig. 2; paragraph [0037], augmented reality display), each viewpoint containing an image of the virtual scene viewed from that viewpoint (paragraphs [0037]–[0043]);
Lyubarsky does not explicitly disclose that the light source comprises a single narrow band point light source per color and configured to emit narrow-band light of which a wavelength spectrum is a narrow band; a splitting device configured to sequentially generate a plurality of incident light beams and form a plurality of virtual light sources at different positions in a first image plane; wherein the splitting device is further configured to direct the incident light beams to the spatial light modulator such that the incident light beams are incident on the surface of the spatial light modulator at different angles of incidence (noting paragraph [0040] of Lyubarsky teaches different angles of incidence on the SLM), and such as to sequentially select at least one of the virtual viewpoints that is visible in the eye box; and wherein the ratio of luminous intensity of a single virtual light source over the luminous intensity of the narrow-band light is at least 1%.
Wang discloses an illumination system for a 3D display system (similar to the system of Lyubarsky), and Wang teaches that the illumination system (referring to Fig. 1 and its description) includes a laser generating a coherent light beam, the light beam is split by beam splitters into three beams, shutter array time sequentially passes the split beams which are redirected to spatial light modulator 9 by light beam deflection element 8 so as to be incident on spatial light modulator at different angles of incidence, and where the luminance of each beam would be approximately 1/3 of the original beam (e.g., Fig. 1 and its description, including the Abstract, where the whole relatively short document appears relevant).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device of Lyubarsky to incorporate an illumination system such as taught by Wang as a suitable configuration for the purposes of Lyubarsky of illuminating a 3D display system (e.g., MPEP §§ 2144.06–07), where the combination would have rendered obvious, based on the teachings of Wang, that the light source comprises a single narrow band point light source per color and configured to emit narrow-band light of which a wavelength spectrum is a narrow band; a splitting device configured to sequentially generate a plurality of incident light beams and form a plurality of virtual light sources at different positions in a first image plane; wherein the splitting device is further configured to direct the incident light beams to the spatial light modulator such that the incident light beams are incident on the surface of the spatial light modulator at different angles of incidence, and such as to sequentially select at least one of the virtual viewpoints that is visible in the eye box; and wherein the ratio of luminous intensity of a single virtual light source over the luminous intensity of the narrow-band light is at least 1%.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Lyubarsky and Wang would have rendered obvious wherein the incident light beams have luminous intensity that substantially corresponds to the luminous intensity of the narrow-band light divided by the number of virtual light source (Fig. 1 of Wang; also an ideal situation with minimal light loss would have been obvious as desirable to avoid wasted light efficiency).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Lyubarsky and Wang would have rendered obvious wherein the light source comprises a laser light source (laser of Wang).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Lyubarsky and Wang would have rendered obvious wherein the light source comprises a red laser point light source configured to generate red light, a green laser point light source configured to generate green light, and a blue laser point light source configured to generate blue light (e.g., laser of Wang, where Lyubarsky teaches RGB light sources used, paragraph [0020]).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Lyubarsky and Wang would have rendered obvious wherein the light source comprises a single narrow band point light source configured to emit white light comprising red light, green light, and blue light (e.g., laser of Wang, paragraph [0039] of Lyubarsky, can be mixed to achieve white light).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Lyubarsky and Wang would have rendered obvious wherein the combiner comprises a holographic reflective holographic combiner (e.g., paragraph [0029] of Wang, suggesting realizing a large area holographic image through combination of sub-holograms).
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of Lyubarsky and Wang would have rendered obvious a wearable device comprising the light-field image projection system according to claim 1 (e.g., eyeglasses, paragraph [0023] and Fig. 1 of Lyubarsky).
Regarding Claim 22, the combination of Lyubarsky and Wang would have rendered obvious the wearable device according to claim 21, comprising an augmented/mixed reality device or smart glasses (augmented reality glasses, paragraph [0023] of Lyubarsky).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3–14, 19, and 20 are 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, and in view of the §112 rejection set forth above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN CROCKETT whose telephone number is (571)270-3183. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am to 5pm.
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, Michael Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RYAN CROCKETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights