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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 10/8/2024 has been considered.
Preliminary Amendment
The preliminary Amendment filed on 10/8/2024 has been considered. In the preliminary Amendment, Applicant amended the specification and amended claim 1.
DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/855,132 filed on 10/8/2024 is presented for examination by the Examiner.
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ebert (US 11,150,480, hereinafter, “Ebert”).
Regarding claim 1, Ebert discloses an asymmetric binocular near-eye display system 10 (Fig. 1), comprising:
a frame 14 configured for a user to wear and bisected by a mid-sagittal plane (plane bisecting bridge of the frame), (Fig. 1, col. 5, lines 1-3); and
a first optical system 24 corresponding to a first eye (right) of the user and a second optical system 24 corresponding to a second eye (left) of the user (Fig. 1, 2, 4, col. 6, lines 23-27), each of the first and second optical systems comprising:
a projection unit 18 operably mounted to the frame and configured to project light corresponding to an image (Fig. 2, 4, col. 5, lines 9-13);
a lens 22 operably mounted to the frame and including an optical element 20 configured to direct the light from the projection unit to a respective eye motion box of the user (Fig. 1, 2, 4, col. 5, lines 9-15);
wherein the first and second optical systems are disposed in predefined, geometrically asymmetric positions about the mid-sagittal plane (col. 5, lines 16-23, 35-38, col. 5, line 65 to col. 6, line 14, Fig. 2, 13. The voice coil actuators may move one or both of the projection unit and the corresponding optical element/combiner which means that after the movement, the moved optical systems 24 are disposed asymmetrically with respect to the mid-sagittal plane).
Regarding claim 2, Ebert discloses the asymmetric binocular near-eye display system of claim 1, wherein
a projection unit of the first optical system and a projection unit of the second optical system are asymmetrically disposed about the mid-sagittal plane such that the eye motion box corresponding to the first optical system and the eye motion box corresponding to the second optical system are asymmetric about the mid-sagittal plane (Fig. 2, 7, when the projection units 18 move along X, then they are asymmetrically disposed about the mid-sagittal plane, col. 7, lines 18-27).
Regarding claim 3, Ebert discloses the asymmetric binocular near-eye display system of claim 1, wherein
the optical element 20 of the first optical system and the optical element 20 of the second optical system are asymmetrically disposed about the mid-sagittal plane (Fig. 2, when the optical elements 20 move along X, then they are asymmetrically disposed about the mid-sagittal plane).
Regarding claim 4, Ebert discloses the asymmetric binocular near-eye display system of claim 1, wherein
a projection unit 18 of the first optical system and a projection unit 18 of the second optical system are asymmetrically disposed about the mid-sagittal plane, and the optical element 20 of the first optical system and the optical element 20 of the second optical system are asymmetrically disposed about the mid-sagittal plane (Fig. 2, 7, when the projection units 18 and the optical elements 20 move along X, then they are asymmetrically disposed about the mid-sagittal plane, col. 7, lines 18-27).
Regarding claim 5, Ebert discloses the asymmetric binocular near-eye display system of claim 1, wherein
a projection unit of the first optical system (right) is disposed closer to the mid-sagittal plane than a projection unit of the second optical system (left) such that the eye motion box corresponding to the first optical system and the eye motion box corresponding to the second optical system are horizontally asymmetric about the mid-sagittal plane (Fig. 2, 7, when the projection units 18 move along X, then they are asymmetrically disposed about the mid-sagittal plane (i.e., one is closer to the mid-sagittal plane than the other), resulting in the corresponding eye motion boxes 32 to also be asymmetrically disposed about the mid-sagittal plane, col. 7, lines 18-27).
Regarding claim 6, Ebert discloses the asymmetric binocular near-eye display system of claim 1, wherein
the optical element 20 of the first optical system (right) is disposed closer to the mid-sagittal plane than the optical element 20 of the second optical system (left), (Fig. 2, 7, when the optical elements 20 move along X, then they are asymmetrically disposed about the mid-sagittal plane (i.e., one is closer to the mid-sagittal plane than the other), col. 7, lines 18-27).
Regarding claim 7, Ebert discloses the asymmetric binocular near-eye display system of claim 1, wherein
the optical element of the first optical system (right) is disposed vertically higher than the optical element of the second optical system (left), (Fig. 2, when one of the two optical elements 20 moves along Y, then it is disposed vertically higher than the other. In some embodiments, a portion of the projector assembly may be moved, meaning that only one may move, col. 5, lines 65-66).
Regarding claim 8, Ebert discloses the asymmetric binocular near-eye display system of claim 1, wherein
the optical element 20 of the first optical system (right) is disposed closer to the mid-sagittal plane and vertically higher than the optical element 20 of the second optical system (left), (Fig. 2, when one of the two optical elements 20 moves along Y and along X, then it is disposed vertically higher than the other and closer to the mid-sagittal plane than the other. In some embodiments, a portion of the projector assembly may be moved, meaning that only one may move, col. 5, lines 65-66).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 9-11, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebert in view of Ronen et al. (US 2022/0075194, hereinafter, “Ronen”).
Regarding claim 9, Ebert discloses the asymmetric binocular near-eye display system of claim 1.
Ebert does not disclose wherein each of the optical element of the first optical system and the optical element of the second optical system include:
a set of major external surfaces,
a set of partially-reflecting surfaces disposed between the major external surfaces so that a part of image illumination propagating within the respective optical element by total internal reflection at said major external surfaces is coupled out of the optical element towards the respective eye motion box of the user.
Ronen discloses a near-eye display system (Abstract, Fig. 1A). In one embodiment, the display system includes two (one for each eye) light guide optical elements, each comprising a set of major external surfaces 26, 26A, and a set of partially reflecting surfaces 40AL, 40AR between the two external surfaces so that a part of image illumination 204CL, 204CR propagating within the respective optical element by total internal reflection at said major external surfaces is coupled out of the optical element towards the respective eye motion box FOV-L, FOV-R of the user (Fig. 17, [0101]-[0106]).
Both Ebert and Ronen disclose near-eye display devices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Ebert so that the optical element/combiner 20 of Ebert is a light guide optical element, as taught by Ronen, for providing optical aperture expansion for the head-up display ([0054] in Ronen).
Ebert/Ronen does not disclose the set of partially-reflecting surfaces of the optical element of the first optical system are shifted along the optical element relative to the set of partially-reflecting surfaces of the optical element of the second optical system.
In Ebert/Ronen, the sets of partially-reflecting surfaces of the optical elements of the two optical systems are positioned in different ways relative to each other (see Figs. 10A-10C, 12A, 12B in Ronen).
The parameter of the relative position (e.g., relative shift along the optical element/waveguide) of the partially-reflecting surfaces of the two optical elements/waveguides is a result-effective variable, i.e., it is recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, affecting the FOV of the display device.
Ebert/Ronen discloses the claimed invention except for the set of partially-reflecting surfaces of the optical element of the first optical system having a shift along the optical element relative to the set of partially-reflecting surfaces of the optical element of the second optical system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Ebert/Ronen so that the sets of partially-reflecting surfaces of the two waveguides have the claimed relative position, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering
the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
In the current instance, the relative positioning of the partially-reflecting surfaces of the two waveguides is an art recognized result-effective variable in that it helps realize a desired FOV of the display device.
Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize the relative positioning of the partially-reflecting surfaces of the two waveguides because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process”.
Regarding claim 10, Ebert/Ronen discloses the asymmetric binocular near-eye display system of claim 9.
Ebert/Ronen does not disclose the set of partially-reflecting surfaces of the optical element of the first optical system is shifted by half of the width of a single partially-reflecting surface relative to the set of partially-reflecting surfaces of the optical element of the second optical system.
The parameter of the relative position (e.g., relative shift along the optical element/waveguide) of the partially-reflecting surfaces of the two optical elements/waveguides is a result-effective variable, i.e., it is recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, affecting the FOV of the display device.
Ebert/Ronen discloses the claimed invention except for the set of partially-reflecting surfaces of the optical element of the first optical system being shifted by half of the width of a single partially-reflecting surface relative to the set of partially-reflecting surfaces of the optical element of the second optical system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Ebert/Ronen so that the sets of partially-reflecting surfaces of the two waveguides have the claimed relative position/shift, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering
the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
In the current instance, the relative positioning of the partially-reflecting surfaces of the two waveguides is an art recognized result-effective variable in that it helps realize a desired FOV of the display device.
Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize the relative positioning/shift of the partially-reflecting surfaces of the two waveguides because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process”.
Regarding claim 11, Ebert discloses the asymmetric binocular near-eye display system of claim 1.
Ebert does not disclose wherein each of the optical element of the first optical system and the optical element of the second optical system include:
a set of major external surfaces,
a set of partially-reflecting surfaces disposed between the major external surfaces so that a part of image illumination propagating within the respective optical element by total internal reflection at said major external surfaces is coupled out of the optical element towards the respective eye motion box of the user.
Ronen discloses a near-eye display system (Abstract, Fig. 1A). In one embodiment, the display system includes two (one for each eye) light guide optical elements, each comprising a set of major external surfaces 26, 26A, and a set of partially reflecting surface 40AL, 40AR between the two external surfaces so that a part of image illumination 204CL, 204CR propagating within the respective optical element by total internal reflection at said major external surfaces is coupled out of the optical element towards the respective eye motion box FOV-L, FOV-R of the user (Fig. 17, [0101]-[0106]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Ebert so that the optical element/combiner 20 of Ebert is a light guide optical element, as taught by Ronen, for providing optical aperture expansion for the head-up display ([0054] in Ronen).
Ebert/Ronen does not disclose a partially-reflecting surface of the set of partially-reflecting surfaces of the optical element of the first optical system disposed optically closest to its respective projection unit is disposed optically closer to its respective projection unit than a partially-reflecting surface of the set of partially-reflecting surfaces of the optical element of the second optical system disposed optically closest to its respective projection unit is disposed optically closer to its respective projection unit.
In Ebert/Ronen, the sets of partially-reflecting surfaces of the optical elements of the two optical systems are positioned in different ways relative to each other (see Figs. 10A-10C, 12A, 12B in Ronen).
The parameter of the relative position (e.g., relative closeness of the partially-reflecting surface closest to the respective projection unit to the respective projection unit) of the partially-reflecting surfaces of the two optical elements/waveguides is a result-effective variable, i.e., it is recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, affecting the FOV of the display device.
Ebert/Ronen discloses the claimed invention except for one of the two optical elements having a partially-reflecting surface being closer to the respective projection unit than the other.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Ebert/Ronen so that one of the two optical elements having a partially-reflecting surface being closer to the respective projection unit than the other, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
In the current instance, the relative positioning of the partially-reflecting surfaces of the two waveguides with respect to the respective projection unit is an art recognized result-effective variable in that it helps realize a desired FOV of the display device.
Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize the relative positioning of the partially-reflecting surfaces of the two waveguides because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process”.
Regarding claim 15, Ebert discloses a method for an asymmetric binocular near-eye display system, comprising:
providing the asymmetric binocular near-eye display system comprising right and left optical systems 24, each optical system projecting an image to a corresponding eye of a user, wherein the right and left optical systems are geometrically asymmetric upon reflection about a plane corresponding to a center of a nose bridge of the near-eye display system (col. 5, lines 9-13, 16-23, 35-38, col. 5, line 65 to col. 6, line 14, Fig. 1, 2, 13. The voice coil actuators may move one or both of the projection unit and the corresponding optical element/combiner which means that after the movement, the moved optical systems 24 are disposed asymmetrically with respect to the mid-sagittal plane).
Ebert does not disclose exploiting the asymmetric binocular near-eye display system to enhance features of the near-eye display system, the exploiting configured to cause the user's brain to merge right and left images into a merged image.
Ronen discloses a near-eye display system (Abstract, Fig. 1A). In one embodiment, the display system includes two (one for each eye) light guide optical elements, each comprising a set of major external surfaces 26, 26A, and a set of partially reflecting surface 40AL, 40AR between the two external surfaces so that a part of image illumination 204CL, 204CR propagating within the respective optical element by total internal reflection at said major external surfaces is coupled out of the optical element towards the respective eye motion box FOV-L, FOV-R of the user (Fig. 17, [0101]-[0106]). Moreover, the first and second FOV (corresponding to the two optical elements/combiners) compose the entire image FOV, where one FOV corresponds to a central area of the image and the other FOV corresponds to a side area of the image, that is, the user’s brain merges right and left images into a merged image (Fig. 14B, [0088], [0090]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Ebert so that the optical element/combiner 20 of Ebert is a light guide optical element, as taught by Ronen, thus resulting in merged right and left images, for providing a continuous combined field of view larger than each of the first and second parts ([0005], [0093] in Ronen).
It is noted that in the above modified Ebert/Ronen method, the exploiting the asymmetric near-eye display system comprises selecting highest quality information regarding the features from the right image or the left image, wherein the features correspond to one or more of (a) increased effective resolution of the merged image or selected portions of the merged image and (b) horizontally or vertically increased effective merged eye motion box (emphasis added), (see Fig. 14B in Ronen where the merged image has a horizontally increased effective merged eye motion box EMB ([0054], Fig. 14A, 14B).
Claims 12, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebert in view of Yoon et al. (US 2019/0258054, hereinafter, “Yoon”).
Regarding claim 12, Ebert discloses the asymmetric binocular near-eye display system of claim 1.
Ebert does not disclose wherein the first optical system has a first depth of focus and the second optical system has a second depth of focus different from the first depth of focus.
Yoon discloses a method for reducing vergence-accommodation conflict of users who stare at a VR or AR screen (Abstract). In one embodiment, Yoon discloses a method for introducing different depth of focus for the two eyes ([0011]).
Both Ebert and Yoon disclose display systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Ebert so that the two optical systems 24 have different depth of focus, as taught by Yoon, for improving the human VR/AR experience ([0032] in Yoon).
Regarding claim 14, Ebert/Yoon discloses the asymmetric binocular near-eye display system of claim 12, wherein
the first depth of focus corresponds to a first position of the projection unit 18 of the first optical system and the second depth of focus corresponds to a second position of the projection unit 18 of the second optical system, the first position different from the second position relative to their respective optical system (Fig. 2 in Ebert).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebert, Yoon in view of Ronen.
Regarding claim 13, Ebert/Yoon discloses the asymmetric binocular near-eye display system of claim 12.
Ebert/Yoon does not disclose wherein the first depth of focus corresponds to a central area of the image and the second depth of focus corresponds to a side area of the image.
Ronen discloses a near-eye display system (Abstract, Fig. 1A). In one embodiment, the display system includes two (one for each eye) light guide optical elements, each comprising a set of major external surfaces 26, 26A, and a set of partially reflecting surface 40AL, 40AR between the two external surfaces so that a part of image illumination 204CL, 204CR propagating within the respective optical element by total internal reflection at said major external surfaces is coupled out of the optical element towards the respective eye motion box FOV-L, FOV-R of the user (Fig. 17, [0101]-[0106]). Moreover, the first and second FOV (corresponding to the two optical elements/combiners) compose the entire image FOV, where one FOV corresponds to a central area of the image and the other FOV corresponds to a side area of the image (Fig. 14B, [0090]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Ebert/Yoon so that the two optical systems 24 have different depth of focus corresponding to a ventral and a side area of the image, as taught by Ronen, for improving the human VR/AR experience, i.e., the perception of a complex image.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEONIDAS BOUTSIKARIS whose telephone number is (703)756-4529. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fr. 9.00-5.00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s
supervisor, Stephone Allen, can be reached on 571-272-2434. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/L.B./
Patent Examiner, AU 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights