DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) filed on 09/13/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and is/are being considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore,
1. the plurality of infrared light sources packaged on top of the glare trap must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s) 9;
2. the plurality of infrared light sources are packaged next to (with) the glare trap must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s) 1, 7 and 19;
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
A typo (underlined) in Claim 14: “…a spatial light arranged to receive the visible light from the visible light source and output, in use, spatially modulated light in accordance with a computer-generated hologram displayed on the spatial light modulator to form, in use, a visible light pattern on a replay plane”. Furthermore, the Examiner suggests that the claim be clarified with proper grammar and punctuation as the clause above appears to be a run-on phrase wherein it becomes difficult to ascertain which structure are performing their respective function(s).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-20 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.
1. A claim term is functional when it recites a feature "by what it does rather than by what it is". Further, without reciting the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function or achieve the result, all means or methods of resolving the problem may be encompassed by the claim. See MPEP § 2173.05(g), citing In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212, 169 USPQ 226, 229 (CCPA 1971) and Ariad Pharmaceuticals., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1353, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). The use of functional language in a claim may fail "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and thus be rendered indefinite. In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971).
In the present case, Claims 1 and 19 recite the limitation: “a glare trap”, which is unclear as it recites functional language without providing a discernable boundary on what element of the head up display performs the function of being a glare trap. Specifically, it is unclear if a specific material/structure/element must be present to perform the function of glare trapping. The instant specification states “he glare trap 704 is transmissive to infrared light” which appears to bear no relevance to the claimed functional limitation of being a glare trap. The specification recites another functional limitation and is silent with respect to specifying any structure/element/material, thereby failing to explain and/or elucidate what the glare trap refers to. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be discerned, rendering Claims 1 and 18 as indefinite. The Examiner respectfully suggests that the glare trap structure be clarified such that that the meaning of the term may be ascertainable by reference to the specification.
2. Claims 1, 7-9 and 19 all recite limitations directed to “the plurality of infrared light sources being packaged with/next to/on top of the glare trap”. It is unclear what is meant by the term “packaged with/next to/on top of” in light of the structures that are being packaged with respect to one another. The instant specification restates in ipsis verbis the generic claim language with no further elucidation. The as-filed Drawings fail to depict the packaging limitations as claimed (see corresponding Drawings objection). Furthermore, in head-up display systems, the elements comprised within the display are usually arranged to maximize compactness such that all the elements are usually accommodated together within the confines of an instrument panel or the like. Therefore, the various propositions used with “packaged” is rendered further unclear in light of the art of HUD display systems. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be treated as inherent.
Claims 2-18 and 20 inherit the deficiency of Claims 1 and 19 and are thus rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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 1-7 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koga (US 20130044138 A1; as cited in the IDS filed 09/13/2024) in view of Maimone et al. (US 2018/0188688 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, as best understood, Koga discloses: head-up display (FIG. 4) comprising a glare trap (FIG. 4: 40; ¶0024: cold mirror 40); and an eye-box (FIG. 4: D; ¶0018: a visual field of a driver D), wherein the head-up display comprises: a picture generating unit (FIG. 4:30; ¶0050: visible light source 30 emits RGB light for image display); an optical system comprising at least one mirror (¶0025: second scanner mirror 13 is a planar mirror) and a beam splitter (35), wherein the beam splitter is substantially reflective to infrared light and transmissive to visible light (¶0046: The hot mirror 35 reflects infrared light IR and transmits green light GR); an infrared image capture device disposed within a volume of the optical system (¶0051: CMOS sensor 24 disposed at this position directly detects infrared light IR reflected at the surface of the driver D, and thus the driver D is imaged; ¶0027, 0052: The CMOS sensor 4 is disposed near the second scanner mirror 13); and an infrared light source packaged with the glare trap, wherein the infrared light sources are arranged to illuminate the eye-box (¶0045: Infrared light IR emitted from the light source 31; ¶0047: infrared light IR transmitted through the second cold mirror 40 [glare trap]; ¶0027: infrared light IR (reflected light) reflected at the surface of the driver D, and thus the driver D is imaged; see FIG. 4 showing infrared light source 31 with the glare trap 40 packaged within unit 30).
Although Koga teaches that “the configuration of the light source unit is not limited to the above-described configuration. A light source in the light source unit is not limited to a laser light source, and an LED [Light Emitting Diode], a white lamp with increased directivity, or the like may be used as a light source”, Koga does not appear to explicitly disclose within the disclosed embodiment(s): a plurality of infrared light sources.
However, it has been held that where a mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device is disclosed in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established. See MPEP § 2144.04, Section VI, citing In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), wherein the court upheld that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See also St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., Inc., 549 F.2d 833 (7th Cir. 1977), rev'g 403 F. Supp. 776 (S.D. IM. 1975), cert. denied 434 U.S. 833 (1977).
In the present case, Maimone is related to Koga with respect to a near eye display comprising a picture generating unit, an optical system and an infrared camera (¶0012, 0049, 0029-32), and Maimone teaches: a plurality of infrared light sources, wherein the infrared light sources are arranged to illuminate the eye-box (¶0032: one or more glint sources 410, such as infrared light sources, configured to cause a glint of light to reflect from each eyeball of a user, and one or more image sensors 412, such as inward-facing sensors, configured to capture an image of each eyeball of the user).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the HUD of Koga via duplication of parts and in view of Maimone to satisfy the claimed condition, because such a plurality of infrared light sources is known and would be selected to detect an eye gaze direction/fovea position of each eye of a user for use in hologram computation, as taught in paragraph ¶0032 of Maimone; and since a prima facie case of obviousness exists where a mere duplication of an element involves only routine skill in the art as a matter of design choice.
Regarding Claim 2, Koga discloses the head-up display according to Claim 1, as above. Koga further discloses: wherein the glare trap is transmissive to infrared light (¶0047: Infrared light IR transmits through the second cold mirror 40), and wherein infrared light reflected off a viewer at the eye-box has an infrared light path through the glare trap and comprises a reflection from the beam splitter to the infrared image capture device (¶0046: The hot mirror 35 [beam splitter] reflects infrared light IR; ¶0051: The CMOS sensor 24 disposed at this position directly detects infrared light IR reflected at the surface of the driver D, and thus the driver D is imaged; see FIG. 4 showing infrared light path through the glare trap 40 and comprises a reflection from the beam splitter 35 to the infrared image capture device 24).
Regarding Claim 3, Koga discloses the head-up display according to Claim 1, as above. Koga further discloses: wherein the glare trap is transmissive to infrared light (¶0047: Infrared light IR transmits through the second cold mirror 40).
Regarding Claim 4, Koga discloses the head-up display according to Claim 1, as above. Koga further discloses: wherein infrared light reflected off a viewer at the eye-box has an infrared light path through the optical system to the infrared image capture device (¶0035, 0051; see FIG. 4 showing infrared light reflected off a viewer at the eye-box D has an infrared light path through the optical system (35+13) to the infrared image capture device 24).
Regarding Claim 5, Koga discloses the head-up display according to Claim 4, as above. Koga further discloses: wherein the glare trap is in the infrared light path (¶0047; see FIG. 4 showing glare trap 40 in the infrared light path).
Regarding Claim 6, Koga discloses the head-up display according to Claim 4, as above. Koga further discloses: wherein the infrared light path comprises a reflection from the beam splitter to the infrared image capture device (¶0046; see FIG. 4 showing infrared light path comprises a reflection from the beam splitter 35 to the infrared image capture device 24).
Regarding Claim 7, as best understood, Koga-Maimone discloses the head-up display according to Claim 1, as above. Koga further discloses: wherein the plurality of infrared light sources are packaged next to the glare trap (¶0047, 0051; see FIG. 4 showing infrared light source 31 packaged next to the glare trap 40; see also rejection of claim 1 regarding Maimone’s teaching of a plurality of infrared sources).
Regarding Claim 12, Koga discloses the head-up display according to Claim 1, as above. Koga further discloses: wherein the beam-splitter is non-disruptive to light of the picture generated by the picture generating unit (¶0046: The hot mirror 35 reflects infrared light IR and transmits green light GR).
Regarding Claim 13, Koga discloses the head-up display according to Claim 1, as above. Koga further discloses: wherein the picture generating unit comprises at least one visible light channel (¶0023, 0034: The first scanner mirror 11 performs scanning such that visible light RGB of laser light L reflected on the movable cold mirror 12 draws a two-dimensional image G).
Regarding Claims 14 and 15, Koga discloses the head-up display according to Claims 13 and 14, as above. Koga does not appear to explicitly disclose the limitations recited in claims 14 and 15.
Maimone (see rejection of claim 1 supra) teaches: wherein each visible light channel comprises: a visible light source arranged to emit visible light; and a spatial light arranged to receive the visible light from the visible light source and output, in use, spatially modulated light in accordance with a computer-generated hologram displayed on the spatial light modulator to form, in use, a visible light pattern on a replay plane (claim 14) (¶0002, 0009: The DDH panel is configured to receive light from the a diverging light source (DLS) and form an image. A DDH is often referred to as a Spatial Light Modulator (SLM); ¶0021, 0025: computing a CGH for the DDH… [0025] Any suitable techniques may be used to calculate the CGH to be displayed on the DDH; ¶0030: Bragg reflective-type holograms reflect different wavelengths of light corresponding to the Red, Green, and Blue wavelengths of the dynamic CGH; ¶0016: the DLS 202 may comprise, for example, one or more laser diodes); wherein each visible light channel further comprises a controller arranged to output, in use, a light-modulation distribution comprising the computer-generated hologram to the spatial light modulator (claim 15) (¶0024: aberrations may be corrected individually for each color channel in the NED device; ¶0049: The controller may be configured to select the phase of each sub-CGH and be additionally or alternatively configured to control the DDH panel to correct for aberrations individually for each color channel in the display device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the HUD of Koga in view of Maimone to satisfy the claimed condition, because such spatial light modulator is known and would be selected to correct for aberrations in the viewer's eye, such as astigmatism or higher order aberrations that may be difficult to correct with ordinary eyeglasses, and in the case of the color display, aberrations may be corrected individually for each color channel in the device, as taught in paragraph ¶0024 of Maimone; furthermore, such a CGH with an SLM is known and would be selected to provide a relatively compact, high-resolution NED which may produce a light field and allow arbitrary focus and aberration correction, including aberrations of the viewer's eye. as taught in paragraph ¶0010 of Maimone.
Regarding Claim 16, Koga-Maimone discloses the head-up display according to Claim 14, as above. Koga further discloses: wherein the optical system further comprises a cover glass, the infrared image capture device being disposed below the cover glass (¶044, 0051-52; see FIG. 4 showing infrared image capture device 24 being disposed below cover glass F).
Regarding Claim 17, Koga-Maimone discloses the head-up display according to Claim 1, as above. Koga further discloses: wherein the infrared image capture device and plurality of infrared light sources are part of a driver monitoring system further comprising: an image processor arranged to receive, in use, captured images of a viewer and provide an input (FIGS. 2 & 4; ¶0028: first image processing unit 5 acquires three-dimensional image information of the driver D from two-dimensional image information of the driver D included in the imaging signal of the CMOS sensor 4 and the calculated image information in the depth direction) which determines, in use, the light-modulation distribution output by at least one of the controllers and therefore the corresponding light pattern formed on the replay plane (¶0029: The first image processing unit 5 outputs information relating to the detected line-of-sight position of the driver D to the control unit 7. The second image processing unit 6 generates the image content, in accordance with vehicle speed information, road shape information, or the like input from the vehicle control ECU, projected onto the windshield glass F; ¶0032: The driving unit 8 performs modulation control of laser light and control such that laser light is projected in area set by the control unit 7) (see also rejection of claim 1 regarding Maimone’s teaching of a plurality of infrared sources).
Regarding Claim 18, Koga discloses the head-up display according to Claim 1, as above. Koga further discloses: wherein the head-up display is arranged to direct, during use, the light of the picture to the eye-box using an optical combiner (¶0034: laser light L is scanned by the first scanner mirror 11, visible light RGB reflected by the movable cold mirror 12 of the scanned laser light L reaches the windshield glass F [optical combiner], and thus an image is projected).
Regarding Claim 19, Koga-Maimone discloses: A method for head-up display, the method comprising: providing a glare trap; generating a picture; conducting light of the picture to an eye-box for viewing by a viewer, via transmission through a beam splitter that is substantially reflective to infrared light and transmissive to visible light, and reflection off of a mirror; illuminating the eye-box with a plurality of infrared light sources packaged with the glare trap (see rejection of claim 1 supra); and conducting infrared light from the eye-box to an infrared image capture device via an infrared light path comprising a reflection off of the beam splitter (¶0046; see FIG. 4 showing infrared light path comprises a reflection from the beam splitter 35 to the infrared image capture device 24).
Regarding Claim 20, Koga-Maimone discloses the head-up display according to Claim 19, as above. Koga further discloses: wherein the glare trap is transmissive to infrared light, and wherein the infrared light path further comprises transmission through the glare trap (see rejection of claim 3 supra).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koga (US 20130044138 A1) in view of Maimone et al. (US 2018/0188688 A1), and further in view of Rast (US 2007/0140095 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Koga discloses the head-up display according to Claim 7, as above. Koga does not appear to explicitly disclose the limitations recited in claim 8.
Rast is related to Koga with respect to a display device comprising light source (¶0181, 0225, 0363) and Rast teaches: wherein the light sources are packaged using a camo film (¶0232: A covering may be created, any conventional base colors may still be supported according to the conditions, such as jungle camo, desert camo; ¶0276-77).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the HUD of Koga in view of Rast to satisfy the claimed condition, because such a camo film is important as when one is hiding in the shadows the camoflage should darken, however, in the light it should be a lighter color, thereby really confusing an enemy as the colors morph while moving, as taught in paragraph ¶0232, 0274 of Rast.
Regarding Claim 9, as best understood, Koga-Maimone discloses the head-up display according to Claim 8, as above. Koga further discloses: wherein the plurality of infrared light sources are packaged on top of the glare trap (¶0043: see FIG. 4 showing infrared light source 31 with glare trap 40; see also rejection of claim 1 regarding Maimone’s teaching of a plurality of infrared sources).
Regarding Claim 10, Koga-Maimone discloses the head-up display according to Claim 9, as above. Koga further discloses: wherein the infrared light source is arranged to emit infrared light wherein all the emitted infrared light is directed to the eye-box (¶0039: the driver D is imaged using infrared light IR to detect the line-of-sight position; see FIG. 4 showing infrared source 31 arranged to emit infrared light wherein all the emitted infrared light is directed to the eye-box D). Maimone teaches: the plurality of infrared light sources is an array of infrared light sources arranged to emit infrared light wherein all the emitted infrared light is directed to the eye-box (0032: one or more glint sources 410, such as infrared light sources, configured to cause a glint of light to reflect from each eyeball of a user, and one or more image sensors 412, such as inward-facing sensors, configured to capture an image of each eyeball of the user; see rejection of claim 1 supra).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koga (US 20130044138 A1) in view of Maimone et al. (US 2018/0188688 A1), and further in view of Robbins et al. (US 2014/0375790 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Koga discloses the head-up display according to Claim 1, as above. Koga does not appear to explicitly disclose the limitations recited in claim 11.
Robbins is related to Koga with respect to a head mounted display device comprising a picture generation unit, infrared light sources and an optical system (FIG. 3; ¶0018-21) and Robbins teaches: wherein the at least one mirror comprises a freeform mirror arranged to relay light of the picture generated by the picture generating unit to the eye-box (¶0019: the freeform prism 316 may include an outward-facing surface 320 having a coating that is highly reflective for infrared light and partially reflective for visible light, and a user-facing surface 318 having a total internal reflective coating in order to direct the light into the user's eye 302; ¶0024: emitting display light through a freeform prism to an eye of a user at 502).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the HUD of Koga in view of Robbins to satisfy the claimed condition, because such a freeform mirror is known and would be utilized in a display system such that the system is less sensitive to eye longitudinal and transverse movement than non-telecentric configurations, thereby enables the eye image to be collimated and focused at a camera lens of the gaze-tracking system without magnifying the image. Accordingly, eye movement relative to the near-eye display system may not affect the accuracy of the gaze-tracking system, as taught in paragraph ¶0011 of Robbins.
Other Relevant Documents Considered
Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure: Border et al. (US 8472120 B2) and Wheeler et al (US 2013/0106674 A1) disclose a display device comprising a picture generation unit, infrared light sources and an optical system, and further satisfying some of the additional conditions as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMANVITHA SRIDHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-0082. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 930-1800 (EST).
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, BUMSUK WON can be reached at 571-272-2713. 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.
/SAMANVITHA SRIDHAR/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights