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 § 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.
Claims 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffin et al. (hereinafter Griffin – US Doc. No. 20180143427) in view of Gao et al. (hereinafter Gao – US Doc. No. 20160154245).
Regarding claim 1, Griffin discloses an optical device comprising:
a light source configured to generate a light (Figure 1, elements 8/12);
a lens assembly off-axis from the light source and configured to receive the light (as shown in Figures 3a and 3b – note light assemblies 16/17/18/19 and 18/19 see that each light assembly is off-axis);
an optical element configured to transmit the light (20); and
a combiner, configured to receive the light from the lens assembly via the optical element and direct the light to form a virtual image at an exit pupil at a position of an eye of a user (see paragraph 0041), wherein the combiner comprises a first inner optical surface form and a second outer optical surface form (see Figure 2 – note that first inner optical surface is 14 and the second outer surface is opposite 14). Although Griffin discloses the combiner with two surfaces, Griffin does not specifically disclose that the first inner optical surface form and the second outer optical surface form are different.
Gao discloses a head mounted display including a light source, lens assembly and a combiner (Figure 2a, element 200) wherein the first inner optical surface form and the second outer optical surface form are different to minimize deviations in an outside view from the combiner (as shown in Figure 2a)
It would have been obvious to combine head mounted display as disclosed by Griffin with the head mounted display and combiner as disclosed by Gao, the combination yielding predictable results and no more than one of ordinary skill in the art would expect from such an arrangement and would further help to mitigate aberrations and optical artifacts.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Griffin and Gao discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed in the claim 1 rejection above. Griffin further discloses that the combiner is non spherical (see paragraph 0048 – note that the primary reflecting optic can be an aspheric mirror).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Griffin and Gao discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed in the claim 1 rejection above. Griffin further discloses that the combiner is tilted about at least one axis (see paragraph 0049 – note that the primary reflecting optic must be tilted relative to the viewing axis).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Griffin and Gao discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed in the claim 1 rejection above. Griffin further discloses that the combiner is off-axis to a linear light path (see paragraph 0049 – note that the primary reflecting optic must be tilted relative to the viewing axis which is linear).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Griffin and Gao discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed in the claim 1 rejection above. Griffin further discloses that the combiner includes an optical coating over at least an optically active region of the combiner (see paragraph 0113 – note that the embedded component 13 [which is in primary optic 1] is coated with a partially reflective coating).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Griffin and Gao discloses all of the limitations of claim 5 as discussed in the claim 5 rejection above. Griffin further discloses that the combiner is made of a plastics material onto which the optical coating is applied (see paragraph 0055 – note the use of polymers).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Griffin and Gao discloses all of the limitations of claim 5 as discussed in the claim 5 rejection above. Griffin further discloses that the optical coating is configured to provide different functionalities (see paragraph 0113 – note that the embedded component 13 [which is in primary optic 1] is coated with a partially reflective coating).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Griffin and Gao discloses all of the limitations of claim 5 as discussed in the claim 5 rejection above. Griffin further discloses that the combiner includes one of a holographic optical element, a diffractive optical element, or an optical microstructure (see paragraph 0113 – note that the embedded component 13 [which is in primary optic 1] is a grating which is considered to be a microstructure).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Griffin and Gao discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed in the claim 1 rejection above. Gao further discloses that the combiner has a variable thickness across the area of the combiner (as shown in Figure 2a).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Griffin and Gao discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed in the claim 1 rejection above. Griffin further discloses that the first inner optical surface form and the second outer optical surface form are biconic (see paragraph 0049).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Griffin and Gao discloses all of the limitations of claim 10 as discussed in the claim 10 rejection above. Griffin further discloses that the first inner optical surface form and the second outer optical surface form are described by a multiple order polynomial function (see paragraph 0049 – note the use of the polynomial terms).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Griffin and Gao discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed in the claim 1 rejection above. Gao further discloses that the first inner optical surface form and the second outer optical surface form each have a different radius of curvature in X and Y axes and are not co-axial (as shown in Figure 2a).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Griffin and Gao discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed in the claim 1 rejection above. Gao further discloses that the first inner optical surface form and the second outer optical surface form each have a different conic constant in X and Y axes (see paragraphs 0077-0082 – note that multiple widths of the are used and can be altered within constraints).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Griffin and Gao discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed in the claim 1 rejection above. Griffin further discloses that the optical element is one of a plurality of optical elements, the plurality of optical elements comprising:
a first optical device, the first optical device being an at least partially mirrored device (Figures 3a and 3b – element 21); and
a second optical device positioned substantially orthogonal relative to the at least partially mirrored device, and located intermediate the lens assembly and the at least partially mirrored device, the second optical device configured to receive the light from the lens assembly and transmit the light to the at least partially mirrored device (Figure 3a – element 15).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Griffin and Gao discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed in the claim 1 rejection above. Griffin further discloses that the light source is an emissive source including a plurality of self-emissive pixels (see paragraph 0044).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Griffin and Gao discloses all of the limitations of claim 15 as discussed in the claim 15 rejection above. Griffin further discloses that each pixel is adapted for illumination and emission over a cone angle (see paragraph 0085).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Griffin and Gao discloses all of the limitations of claim 15 as discussed in the claim 15 rejection above. Griffin further discloses a cone angle, but does not give an exact angle. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use any suitable angle for the HMD device to display correctly, 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.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Griffin and Gao discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed in the claim 1 rejection above. Griffin further discloses that the optical device is arranged to fold a light path about a first axis and a second axis (as shown in Figures 3a and 3b).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Griffin and Gao discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed in the claim 1 rejection above. Griffin further discloses that the optical device forms part of a wearable device, and wherein at least a part of the optical device is folded upward or to the side of a brow of the user (see paragraph 0072).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Griffin and Gao discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed in the claim 1 rejection above. Griffin further discloses that the lens assembly is a relay lens assembly (see paragraph 0051).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Griffin and Gao discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed in the claim 1 rejection above. Griffin further discloses that a binocular optical device comprising two optical devices according to claim 1 (see paragraph 0116 – note that both eyes are used).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Griffin and Gao discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed in the claim 1 rejection above. Griffin further discloses that a wearable device including one or two optical devices according to claim 1 (see paragraph 0072).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Griffin and Gao discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed in the claim 1 rejection above. Griffin further discloses that a system comprising: a plurality of processors configured to send and receive data and to process data; one or more sensors configured to collect at least some of the data from an environment and send the data to the processors; and one or more wearable devices according to claim 22 (see paragraph 0044).
Method claims 24-25 are drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claims 1-2. Therefore method claims 24-25 correspond to apparatus claims 1-2 and are rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM R GIESY whose telephone number is (571)272-7555. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-6.
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, Patrick Edouard can be reached at 5712727603. 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.
/ADAM R. GIESY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622