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 .
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the present application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDSs dated 13 September 2024 and 13 May 2025 were considered by the examiner.
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 5-6 and 13-14 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.
Re: claims 5 and 6, the meaning of the limitation “waveguide surfaces” is unclear. It is not clear as to whether the four waveguide surfaces recited in claim 4 or whether some other surfaces are being referenced. For the purpose of examining the present claim, the limitation has been construed as referring to the four waveguide surfaces recited in claim 4.
Re: claims 13 and 14, the meaning of the limitation “surfaces” is unclear. It is not clear as to whether the limitation refers to the four surfaces recited in claim 12 or whether some other surfaces are being referenced. For the purpose of examining the present claim, the limitation has been construed as referring to the four surfaces recited in claim 12.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-10, and 12-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Adema (US20220269077).
Re: claim 1, Adema discloses a collimator 202, 204, 205 (Figs. 2, 20) comprising: a first portion 210 (Fig. 2) having a first length (length disclosed in Fig. 2) and comprising a plurality of freeform surfaces (para. 105 discloses freeform) configured to collimate display light 218 generated by a microdisplay (configuration disclosed in Figs. 1, 2, 20; para. 96 discloses “the user perceives the projected images as being displayed in a field of view (FOV) area 106 of a display at one or both of lens elements 108, 110” [emphasis added]; para. 107 discloses collimated light being provided to waveguide 205 from the first portion 210); and a second portion 205 having a second length longer than the first length (comparative lengths disclosed in Figs. 2, 20, where figures can be relied upon for what they would reasonably teach a person of ordinary skill in the art [MPEP § 2125]) and comprising a waveguide 205 configured to guide the display light 218 from the first portion 210 to a pupil 214 at a distal end of the second portion (disposition & configuration disclosed in Figs. 2, 20).
Re: claim 2, Adema discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Adema further discloses an exit pupil expander 2304 (Fig. 23) configured to receive the pupil and expand the display light (configuration disclosed in Fig. 23, para. 108, 143).
Re: claim 4, Adema discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Adema further discloses that the waveguide comprises four waveguide surfaces (Fig. 2 discloses waveguide 205 having two horizontally extending surfaces and two vertically extending surfaces).
Re: claim 5, Adema discloses the limitations of claim 4, and Adema further discloses that one or more of the waveguide surfaces is flat (Fig. 2 discloses four flat surfaces).
Re: claim 6, Adema discloses the limitations of claim 4 and Adema further discloses that one or more of the waveguide surfaces 2908 is curved (Fig. 29; para. 149 discloses “the central ray 2904…is not perpendicular to any dimension of the modified incoupler 2906 or the waveguide that includes the modified incoupler 2906 along one or more dimensions…”).
Re: claim 7, Adema discloses the limitations of claim 1 and Adema further discloses a frame 102, 104, 2002 (Figs. 1, 20); and a lens 2004 comprising a spherical shell 2006, 2008 disposed within the frame, wherein the second portion 205 of the collimator is embedded within the spherical shell (embedded disclosed in Fig. 20).
Re: claim 8, Adema discloses the limitations of claim 7, and Adema further discloses that the microdisplay is disposed within the frame 102, 104 (Fig. 1 & para. 96 discloses disposition).
Re: claim 9, Adema discloses the steps of collimating display light 218 (Fig. 2) generated by a microdisplay at a first portion 210 of a collimator 202, 204, 205 (para. 96 discloses “the user perceives the projected images as being displayed in a field of view (FOV) area 106 of a display at one or both of lens elements 108, 110 [emphasis added]; para. 107 discloses collimated light being provided to waveguide 205 from the first portion 210), the first portion having a first length (Fig. 2); and guiding the collimated display light along a second portion 205 of the collimator having a second length that is longer than the first length (longer length disclosed in Figs. 2, 20, where figures can be relied upon for what they would reasonably teach a person of ordinary skill in the art [MPEP § 2125]) of the first portion to form a pupil 214 at a distal end of the second portion (disposition & configuration disclosed in Figs. 2, 20).
Re: claim 10, Adema discloses the limitations of claim 9, and Adema further discloses the step of receiving the pupil and expanding the display light at an exit pupil expander (configuration disclosed in Fig. 23, para. 108, 143).
Re: claim 12, Adema discloses the limitations of claim 9, and Adema further discloses that the second portion comprises four surfaces (Fig. 2 discloses waveguide 205 having two horizontally extending surfaces and two vertically extending surfaces).
Re: claim 13, Adema discloses the limitations of claim 12, and Adema further discloses that one or more of the surfaces is flat (Fig. 2 discloses four flat surfaces).
Re: claim 14, Adema discloses the limitations of claim 12 and Adema further discloses that one or more of the surfaces 2908 is curved (Fig. 29; para. 149 discloses “the central ray 2904…is not perpendicular to any dimension of the modified incoupler 2906 or the waveguide that includes the modified incoupler 2906 along one or more dimensions…”).
Re: claim 15, Adema discloses the limitations of claim 9, and Adema further discloses a frame 102, 104, 2002 (Figs. 1, 20); and a lens 2004 comprising a spherical shell 2006, 2008 disposed within the frame, wherein the second portion 205 of the collimator is embedded within the spherical shell (Fig. 20 discloses embedding).
Re: claim 16, Adema discloses the limitations of claim 15, and Adema further discloses that the microdisplay is disposed within the frame 102, 104 (Fig. 1 & para. 96 discloses disposition).
Re: claim 17, Adema discloses a frame 102, 104, 2002 (Figs. 1, 20); a lens 2004 comprising a spherical shell 2006, 2008 disposed within the frame; a microdisplay (para. 96 discloses “the user perceives the projected images as being displayed in a field of view (FOV) area 106 of a display at one or both of lens elements 108, 110” [emphasis added]) disposed within the frame to generate display light (disposition disclosed in Figs. 1, 2, 20); and an elongated collimator comprising: a first portion 210 having a first length (Fig. 2) and comprising a plurality of freeform surfaces (para. 105 discloses freeform) configured to collimate the display light (para. 107 discloses collimated light being provided to waveguide 205 from the first portion 210); and a second portion 205 having a second length longer than the first length (comparative lengths disclosed in Figs. 2, 20, where figures can be relied upon for what they would reasonably teach a person of ordinary skill in the art [MPEP § 2125]) and configured to guide the display light from the first portion to a pupil 214 at a distal end of the second portion 205 (disposition & configuration disclosed in Figs. 2, 20).
Re: claim 18, Adema discloses the limitations of claim 17, and Adema further discloses an exit pupil expander 2304 (Fig. 23) configured to receive the pupil and expand the display light (configuration disclosed in Fig. 23, para. 108, 143).
Re: claim 19, Adema discloses the limitations of claim 17, and Adema further discloses that the distal end of the second portion 205 is at or near the center of the lens 2004 (Fig. 20, where light rays are shown exiting waveguide 205 near the center of lens 2004).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 3, 11, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adema.
Re: claims 3 and 11, Adema discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 9 respectively. Adema does not disclose that the second length is more than ten times the first length; however, Adema does disclose that the second length is greater than the first length, as disclosed in at least Fig. 20, where the second length is the length of second portion / waveguide 205 and the first length is the length of first portion 210, which is housed within element 204. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable size values by routine experimentation (MPEP § 2144.05.II.A). A person of ordinary skill in the art at a time prior to the effective date would have been motivated to optimize the respective sizes of the first and second lengths to reduce both the weight and physical size of the optoelectronic components in the WHUD.
Re: claim 20, Adema discloses the limitations of claim 17. Adema does not explicitly disclose that the second portion confers less than a threshold amount of optical power to the display light. However, Adema does disclose that an incoupler 2906 of the second portion 205 is curved (see Fig. 29; para. 149 of Adema). This structure recited by Adema corresponds to the recitation in para. 32 of the present specification, which states that “one or more surfaces of the second portion 206 are curved and distribute optical power along the length 216 of the second portion 206. The amount of curvature of the one or more surf aces of the second portion is limited to a threshold to minimize distortion of the image quality of the light.” In other words, according to the present specification, the only structure required to create less than a threshold amount of optical power to the display light is the second portion having a curved input surface having an unspecified curvature. Adema discloses these same structural elements, as set forth above. Therefore, the device disclosed by Adema is capable of obtaining the claimed intended result of the second portion conferring less than a threshold amount of optical power to the display light (see also MPEP § 2144.II, which states that a claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA MEDICH whose telephone number is (313)446-4819. The examiner can normally be reached M-T & Th-F 10:00 AM - 7:00 PM ET.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at 571-272-9791. 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.
/ANGELA M. MEDICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights