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.
Claim 7 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.
Claim 7 recites “an external lens adjacent the second major surface and having optical power configured to reflect light towards a fixating center.”, it is unclear how an external lens having optical power is configured to “reflect” light, since a lens ordinarily refracts or focuses transmitted light rather than reflects light. Therefore, it is unclear whether the claimed external lens is intended to refract/focus light toward the fixating center or whether the claimed element is a reflective optical element. For examination purpose, examiner will interpret as refracts.
Claim 12 recites “a partially reflecting area” of the first and second partially reflecting internal surface, but the scope of the term “partially reflecting area” is unclear. Claim 1 recites partially reflective internal surfaces, but does not define a separate “partially reflecting area” of those surfaces. It is not clear whether the “partially reflecting area” refers to the entire partially reflective internal surface, a coated/active portion of the surface, an edge region of the surface. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of claim 12 is unclear.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite because the phrase “multiple lenses according to claim 1” is unclear. Claim 1 recites a near eye display optical system comprising a lens, not a standalone lens. Therefore, it is unclear whether claim 13 requires multiple complete near-eye display optical systems according to claim 1, or merely multiple lenses each having the structural lens features recited in claim 1.
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(s) 1-5, 7-9, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradski et al. US 2015/0178939 in view of Gelberg et al. US 2021/0165231.
Regarding claim 1, Bradski teaches a near eye display optical system (see abstract and Figs. 2A-4D: a wearable augmented/virtual reality display system), comprising:
a lens extending along an arrangement axis and having (a) an input plane and
(b) first and second major surfaces generally extending along the arrangement axis (see Fig. 6A: an optical substrate/waveguide 124 extending along the direction of image light propagation, display 140 and lens 142 inject image light into substrate 124 from one side, which corresponds to the claimed input plane, the upper and lower (front and back) opposed surface of substrate 124 corresponds the claimed first and second major surfaces),
the lens configured to receive light corresponding to an image collimated along the arrangement axis via the input plane (Fig. 6A: depicts display 140 and lens 142 providing parallel/collimated image rays into substrate 124 along the longitudinal direction of the substrate); and
the lens comprising a set of partially reflective internal surfaces disposed along the arrangement axis at angles relative to the arrangement axis (Fig. 6A and para 0058: “The rays may be reflected from a series of reflective surfaces (126, 128, 130, 132, 134, 136) which may be configured to partially reflect and partially transmit incoming light so that the light may be shared across the group of reflective surfaces (126, 128, 130, 132, 134, 136) approximately equally.”).
Bradski teaches the sequential internal reflector arrangement, but fails to teach a first partially reflective internal surface from the set disposed closest to the input plane having lower reflectance than a second partially reflective internal surface farthest from the input plane such that at least some of the light reaches the second partially reflective internal surface after being transmitted by the first partially reflective internal surface and without previously having reflected off the first or second major surfaces.
In the same field of endeavor, Gelberg teaches a near eye display lightguide/LOE having an elongated transparent block with mutually parallel major surface and as et of obliquely angle mutually parallel partially reflective internal surfaces, (see para 0003-0004 and Fig. 4A), the last/rightmost facet 16c is the last facet in the sequence through which the image conveying light propagates has the highest reflectance, as shown at the right end of Fig. 2 and para 0049. Gelberg further teaches that the transmittance of the other facets is even greater than the transmittance of the last facet, thereby indicating that the other facets have lower reflectance than the last facets (see para 0043). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Bradski’s sequential internal reflective surfaces 126-136 so that the first/closest internal reflective surface has lower reflectance than the farthest internal reflective surface, as taught by Gelberg, in order to compensate for the progressive depletion of image light as portions of the image light are reflected/coupled out by earlier facets and to provide a more uniform distribution of image light toward the viewer eye box.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Bradski teaches the near eye display optical system of claim 1, and Bradski further teaches wherein the second partially reflective internal surface reflects the at least some the light out of the lens at a 90 degree angle towards an eye motion box of a user of the near eye display (see Fig. 6A: the incoming image light travels generally along the longitudinal axis of substrate 124 from display 140, while the reflected output rays are directed generally downward out of the substrate toward the user’s eye i.e., approximately perpendicular relative to the propagation direction).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Bradski teaches the near eye display optical system of claim 1, and Bradski further teaches comprising a projection unit configured to project the light corresponding to the image collimated along the arrangement axis onto the lens via the input plane (see Fig. 6A: projection/display 140 positioned at the input side of substrate/lens 124).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Bradski teaches the near eye display optical system of claim 1, and Bradski further teaches comprising: a first external lens adjacent the first major surface and having optical power; and a second external lens adjacent the second major surface and having optical power complementary to the optical power of the first external lens such that landscape light transmitted through the first external lens and acted upon by the optical power of the first major surface is subsequently transmitted through the second external lens acted upon by the optical power of the second major surface to appear to a user similar to the landscape light as first received by the first external lens (see Fig. 7A and para 0063: waveguide 164 positioned between two external lens elements 166/167, with one lens element disposed between the waveguide 164 and the user’s eye 58 and another similar variable focus lens element placed on the opposite side of the waveguide).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Bradski teaches the near eye display optical system of claim 4, and Bradski further teaches wherein at least one of the first and second external lenses is nonplanar, or the first and second external lenses are not parallel to each other (see Fig. 7A: the external lens element 166 are shown with curved lens profiles, not as flat planar plates. Thus, at least one of the external lens elements adjacent the waveguide is nonplanar).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Bradski teaches the near eye display optical system of claim 1, and Bradski further teaches comprising: an external lens adjacent the second major surface and having optical power configured to reflect light towards a fixating center of a user of the near eye display, the fixating center of the user positioned at a pre-defined distance from the user's eye (see Fig. 7A: shows waveguide 164 positioned with an external lens element 166 between the waveguide and the user’s eye 58, with display light directed toward the eye, thus under the broad interpretation the claimed “fixating center” corresponds to the user’s eye or eye viewing region).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Bradski teaches the near eye display optical system of claim 7, and Bradski further teaches wherein the external lens has a curved surface, wherein the image has different planes of focus between two axes such that, after propagating via the curved surface, the image has symmetrical focus, at the pre-defined distance (see Fig. 6A: external lenses 139 focuses image from the display toward the eye 58).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Bradski teaches the near eye display optical system of claim 1, and Bradski further teaches wherein the first partially reflective internal surface and the second partially reflective internal surface are configured to reflect light towards a fixating center of a user of the near eye display, the fixating center of the user positioned at a pre-defined distance from the user's eye (see para 0058: “The rays may be reflected from a series of reflective surfaces (126, 128, 130, 132, 134, 136) which may be configured to partially reflect and partially transmit incoming light so that the light may be shared across the group of reflective surfaces (126, 128, 130, 132, 134, 136) approximately equally. With a small lens (138) placed at each exit point from the waveguide (124), the exiting light rays may be steered through a nodal point and scanned out toward the eye (58) to provide an array of exit pupils, or the functional equivalent of one large exit pupil that is usable by the user as he or she gazes toward the display system”).
Regarding claim 13, Bradski teaches a near eye display comprising multiple lenses according to claim 1, and Bradski further teaches a first lens of the multiple lenses configured to expand the light in a first direction and a second lens of the multiple lenses configured to, thereafter, expand the light in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (as show in Fig. 6A: lens 142 expands light from display 140 in the Y-axis, and lenses 139 also expands light into the eye 58 in the X-axis).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradski and Gelberg as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kress et al. US 2020/0041798.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Bradski teaches the near eye display optical system of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein at least one of the first and second major surfaces is nonplanar or the first and second major surfaces are not parallel.
In the same field of endeavor, Kress teaches at least one of the first and second major surfaces is nonplanar or the first and second major surfaces are not parallel (see Fig. 2C: curved first and second major surfaces). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Bradski’s near-eye lens with a curved nonplanar major surface as taught by Kress, to incorporate the optical combiner into a hear-wearable display having a prescription lens and to provide corrective optical power for ambient scene light.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradski and Gelberg as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ronen et al. US 2022/0075194.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Bradski teaches the near eye display optical system of claim 1, wherein the set of partially reflective internal surfaces is configured to reflect the light out of the lens towards an eye motion box of a user of the near eye display (see Fig. 6A: light reflected by reflective surface 126-136 directed toward user’s eye 58). However, Bradski fails to teach wherein spacings between partially reflective surfaces in the set vary, the spacings being set such as to induce an even intensity distribution of all light fields at the eye motion box.
In the same field of endeavor, Ronen teaches that the distance between adjacent facets depend on the FOV and the entrance aperture and must be designed to replicate the entrance aperture to the entire EMB uniformly and without empty regions, and further teaches for a given entrance aperture size, constant spacing between facets results in non-uniform illumination and bright/dark stripes (see para 0078, and Figs. 3-4), Rosen further states that closely spaced facet improve uniformity of the illuminated output image in the entire EMB by averaging and mitigating non-uniformity (see para 0079-0080). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Bradski’s sequential partially reflective internal surfaces to have varying spacing as taught by Ronen, to reduce non-uniform illumination, avoid bright/dark stripe artifacts, and provide more uniform image illumination at the eye motion box.
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.
Claim(s) 14 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bradski et al. US 2015/0178939.
Regarding claim 14, Bradski teaches a near eye display optical system (see abstract and Figs. 2A-4D: a wearable augmented/virtual reality display system), comprising:
a lens extending along an arrangement axis and having
(a) an input plane and
(b) first and second major surfaces generally extending along the arrangement axis (see Fig. 6A: an optical substrate/waveguide 124 extending along the direction of image light propagation, display 140 and lens 142 inject image light into substrate 124 from one side, which corresponds to the claimed input plane, the upper and lower (front and back) opposed surface of substrate 124 corresponds the claimed first and second major surfaces),
the lens configured to receive collimated light corresponding to an image, the collimated light entering the lens through the input plane (Fig. 6A: depicts display 140 and lens 142 providing parallel/collimated image rays into substrate 124 along the longitudinal direction of the substrate); and
the lens comprising a set of partially reflective internal surfaces disposed along the arrangement axis at angles relative to the arrangement axis (Fig. 6A and para 0058: “The rays may be reflected from a series of reflective surfaces (126, 128, 130, 132, 134, 136) which may be configured to partially reflect and partially transmit incoming light so that the light may be shared across the group of reflective surfaces (126, 128, 130, 132, 134, 136) approximately equally.”),
a first partially reflective internal surface from the set having partial reflectance such that at least some of the collimated light is reflected out of the lens by the first partially reflective internal surface without previously having reflected off the first or second major surfaces (Fig. 6A appears to show collimated image light from display/lens 140/142 entering waveguide/substrate 124 and directly encountering internal reflective surfaces 126-136, with light reflected out toward the eye before bouncing from the opposed major surfaces).
Regarding claim 17, Bradski teaches the near eye display optical system of claim 14, wherein at least some of the collimated light reaches and is reflected out of the lens by a second partially reflective internal surface from the set after being transmitted by the first partially reflective internal surface (see Fig. 6A).
Claim(s) 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradski and Gelberg as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Ronen et al. US 2022/0075194.
Regarding claim 15, Bradski teaches the near eye display optical system of claim 14, except for wherein the input plane corresponds to the first major surface or the second major surface.
In the same field of endeavor, Ronen teaches a light-guide optical element having major external surface and a coupling in arrangement for injecting image illumination into the LOE. Ronen expressly teaches that the coupling in surface may be coplanar with or parallel to one of the major external surface of the LOE, and that the LOE may include at least one partially reflecting coupling in surface (see para 0024). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Bradski optical system such that the input plane corresponds to one of the major surfaces, as taught by Ronen, in order to provide an alternative compact coupling in configuration for injecting image illumination into the LOE through a surface associated with a major surface of the LOE.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Bradski teaches the near eye display optical system of claim 14, and Ronen further teaches wherein the collimated light enters the lens through the first major surface or the second major surface at acute angles relative to the arrangement axis (see Fig. 20C: which shows image illumination entering LOE 403 through a coupling-in associated with a major external surface of the LOE).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 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.
6. The near eye display optical system of claim 4, comprising: an optical shutter disposed between (a) one of the first and second external lenses and (b) a corresponding one of the first and second major surfaces to overlap at least some of the partially reflective surfaces along an optical axis of the near eye display, the optical shutter incorporating a polarizer oriented such that only P polarized light is transmitted from the landscape light through the lens and the partially reflective surfaces towards and eye of the user, wherein the partially reflective surfaces coatings are polarization dependent with lower P polarization reflectivity and higher S polarization reflectivity.
Claim 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
12. The near eye display optical system of claim 1, wherein a partially reflecting area of the second partially reflecting internal surface is closer to the first major surface while a partially reflecting area of the first partially reflecting internal surface is closer to the second major surface such that the respective partially reflecting areas of the first and second partially reflecting surfaces are slanted relative to the arrangement axis.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EPHREM ZERU MEBRAHTU whose telephone number is (571)272-8386. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am -6 pm (M-F).
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 at 571-272-2434. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EPHREM Z MEBRAHTU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights