DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
The response filed 3/5/26 is entered. Claims 15, 25, and 26 are amended. Claims 15-34 are pending.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/5/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 3/5/26 have been fully considered but they are directed to newly amended claims and therefore believed to be answered by and thus moot in view of new grounds of rejections presented below.
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.
Claim(s) 15-23, and 25-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robbins, US-20130322810, in view of Sears, US-20200111259.
In regards to claim 15, Robbins discloses a head mounted display system to display an image (Par. 0019 “the imaging structure 100 can be implemented in an imaging unit of a head-mounted display (HMD)”), the head mounted display system (Par. 0019 “the imaging structure 100 can be implemented in an imaging unit of a head-mounted display (HMD)”) comprising: a display engine (Fig. 1, 108 image microdisplay; Par. 0016 “image microdisplay 108 can be implemented as a liquid crystal on silicon (LCOS) microdisplay that projects the light of the virtual image through the imaging optic 110 into the waveguides”) to generate light for an image for display (Fig. 1, 108 image microdisplay; Par. 0016 “image microdisplay 108 can be implemented as a liquid crystal on silicon (LCOS) microdisplay that projects the light of the virtual image through the imaging optic 110 into the waveguides”); the system configured to apply color specific settings to a first subset of the light (Fig. 2, light input and output to/from 202 waveguide), such that the first subset of the light (Fig. 2, light input and output to/from 202 waveguide) has different settings than a second subset of the light (Fig. 2, light input and output to/from 204 waveguide; Par. 0021 three subsets of light are applied a different polarization, i.e. color specific settings, for each waveguide); and an optical combiner (Fig. 2, 202 waveguide + 204 waveguide + 206 waveguide + 208 and 210 polarization switches, i.e. waveguide selector) to display the image, the optical combiner (Fig. 2, 202 waveguide + 204 waveguide + 206 waveguide + 208 and 210 polarization switches, i.e. waveguide selector) comprising: a first waveguide (Fig. 2, 202 waveguide) to output the first subset of the light (Fig. 2, light input and output to/from 202 waveguide); a second waveguide (Fig. 2, 204 waveguide) to output the second subset of the light (Fig. 2, light input and output to/from 204 waveguide); and a waveguide selector (Fig. 2, 208 and 210 polarization switches, i.e. waveguide selector; Par. 0021 polarization switches select which waveguide receives the light being output) using polarization to guide the first subset of the light (Fig. 2, light input and output to/from 202 waveguide) to the first waveguide (Fig. 2, 202 waveguide) and the second subset of the light (Fig. 2, light input and output to/from 204 waveguide) to the second waveguide (Fig. 2, 204 waveguide).
Robbins does not disclose expressly apply color specific settings to a first subset of the light of the image, such that the first subset of the light has different settings than a second subset of the light of the image.
Sears disclose apply color specific settings to a first subset of the light of the image, such that the first subset of the light has different settings than a second subset of the light of the image (Par. 0196 different color channels have different resolutions, i.e. color specific settings).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the image of Robbins can have different color channels with different resolutions as Sears discloses. The motivation for doing so would have been that different colors are perceived by the eye with different sensitivities so each color channel may not need full resolution to be perceived in the manner required by the eye.
In regards to claim 25, Robbins discloses a method of displaying an image comprising: generating light for an image for display; applying color specific settings to a first subset of the light (Fig. 2, light input and output to/from 202 waveguide), such that the first subset of the light (Fig. 2, light input and output to/from 202 waveguide) has different settings than a second subset of the light (Fig. 2, light input and output to/from 204 waveguide; Par. 0021 three subsets of light are applied a different polarization, i.e. color specific settings, for each waveguide); and outputting the image (Fig. 1, 108 image microdisplay; Par. 0016 “image microdisplay 108 can be implemented as a liquid crystal on silicon (LCOS) microdisplay that projects the light of the virtual image through the imaging optic 110 into the waveguides”), wherein outputting the image comprises: using polarization to guide the first subset of the light (Fig. 2, light input and output to/from 202 waveguide) to a first waveguide (Fig. 2, 202 waveguide; Fig. 2, 208 and 210 polarization switches, i.e. waveguide selector; Par. 0021 polarization switches select which waveguide receives the light being output) and the second subset of the light (Fig. 2, light input and output to/from 204 waveguide) to a second waveguide (Fig. 2, 204 waveguide; Fig. 2, 208 and 210 polarization switches, i.e. waveguide selector; Par. 0021 polarization switches select which waveguide receives the light being output); outputting the first subset of light through the first waveguide (Fig. 2, 202 waveguide); and outputting the second subset of light through the second waveguide (Fig. 2, 204 waveguide).
Robbins does not disclose expressly applying color specific settings to a first subset of the light, such that the first subset of the light within the image has different settings than a second subset of the light within the image.
Sears disclose apply color specific settings to a first subset of the light of the image, such that the first subset of the light has different settings than a second subset of the light of the image (Par. 0196 different color channels have different resolutions, i.e. color specific settings).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the image of Robbins can have different color channels with different resolutions as Sears discloses. The motivation for doing so would have been that different colors are perceived by the eye with different sensitivities so each color channel may not need full resolution to be perceived in the manner required by the eye.
In regards to claim 26, a head mounted display system (Par. 0019 “the imaging structure 100 can be implemented in an imaging unit of a head-mounted display (HMD)”) to display an image, the head mounted display system (Par. 0019 “the imaging structure 100 can be implemented in an imaging unit of a head-mounted display (HMD)”) comprising: the system configured to apply color specific settings to a first subset of light (Fig. 2, light input and output to/from 202 waveguide; Par. 0021 three subsets of light are applied a different polarization, i.e. color specific settings, for each waveguide), such that the first subset of the light (Fig. 2, light input and output to/from 202 waveguide) has different settings than a second subset of the light (Fig. 2, light input and output to/from 204 waveguide; Par. 0021 three subsets of light are applied a different polarization, i.e. color specific settings, for each waveguide); a waveguide selector (Fig. 2, 208 and 210 polarization switches, i.e. waveguide selector; Par. 0021 polarization switches select which waveguide receives the light being output) using polarization to guide the first subset of the light (Fig. 2, light input and output to/from 202 waveguide) to a first waveguide (Fig. 2, 202 waveguide) and the second subset of the light (Fig. 2, light input and output to/from 204 waveguide) to a second waveguide (Fig. 2, 204 waveguide); the first waveguide (Fig. 2, 202 waveguide) to output the first subset of the light (Fig. 2, light input and output to/from 202 waveguide); and the second waveguide (Fig. 2, 204 waveguide) to output the second subset of the light (Fig. 2, light input and output to/from 204 waveguide).
Robbins does not disclose expressly apply color specific settings to a first subset of the light of the image, such that the first subset of the light has different settings than a second subset of the light of the image.
Sears disclose apply color specific settings to a first subset of the light of the image, such that the first subset of the light has different settings than a second subset of the light of the image (Par. 0196 different color channels have different resolutions, i.e. color specific settings).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the image of Robbins can have different color channels with different resolutions as Sears discloses. The motivation for doing so would have been that different colors are perceived by the eye with different sensitivities so each color channel may not need full resolution to be perceived in the manner required by the eye.
In regards to claim 16, Robbins and Sears, as combined above, disclose wherein the optical combiner (Robbins Fig. 2, 202 waveguide + 204 waveguide + 206 waveguide + 208 and 210 polarization switches, i.e. waveguide selector) further comprises: wherein the first waveguide (Robbins Fig. 2, 202 waveguide) and the second waveguide (Robbins Fig. 2, 204 waveguide) have different eye boxes (Robbins Par. 0021 each waveguide was a different FOV, i.e. eyebox).
In regards to claim 17, Robbins and Sears, as combined above, disclose the first waveguide (Robbins Fig. 2, 202 waveguide) and the second waveguide (Robbins Fig. 2, 204 waveguide) have different fields of view (Robbins Par. 0021 each waveguide was a different FOV).
In regards to claim 18, Robbins and Sears, as combined above, disclose in-couplers (Robbins Fig. 2, 214 polarizing beamsplitters, i.e. in-couplers of waveguides 202, 204, and 206) of the first waveguide (Robbins Fig. 2, 202 waveguide) and the second waveguide (Robbins Fig. 2, 204 waveguide) are not spatially separated (Robbins Fig. 2, 214 polarizing beamsplitters, i.e. in-couplers of waveguides 202, 204, and 206, are not spatially separated as viewed in a light propagation direction).
In regards to claim 19, Robbins and Sears, as combined above, disclose out-couplers (Robbins Fig. 1 and 2, out-couplers of waveguides 202, 204, and 206) of the first waveguide (Robbins Fig. 2, 202 waveguide) and the second waveguide (Robbins Fig. 2, 204 waveguide) are spatially separated (Robbins Fig. 1 and 2, out-couplers of waveguides 202, 204, and 206 are spatially separated to provide wider FOV; Robbins Par. 0021 each waveguide provides different FOV to collectively provide an increased FOV).
In regards to claim 20, Robbins and Sears, as combined above, disclose the out-couplers (Robbins Fig. 1 and 2, out-couplers of waveguides 202, 204, and 206) of the first waveguide (Robbins Fig. 2, 202 waveguide) and the second waveguide (Robbins Fig. 2, 204 waveguide) have different sizes (Robbins Fig. 1 and 2, out-couplers of waveguides 202, 204, and 206 have different location and sizes to provide wider FOV; Robbins Par. 0021 each waveguide provides different FOV to collectively provide an increased FOV).
In regards to claim 21, Robbins and Sears, as combined above, disclose the first subset of the light (Robbins Fig. 2, light input and output to/from 202 waveguide) and the second subset of the light (Robbins Fig. 2, light input and output to/from 204 waveguide) include all three colors (Robbins Fig. 1, 108 image microdisplay; Robbins Par. 0016 “image microdisplay 108 can be implemented as a liquid crystal on silicon (LCOS) microdisplay that projects the light of the virtual image through the imaging optic 110 into the waveguides”; the microdisplay displays all three colors for each waveguide to provide the wider FOV).
In regards to claim 22, Robbins does not disclose expressly the first subset of the light has a higher resolution than the second subset of the light.
Sears disclose the first subset of the light has a higher resolution than the second subset of the light (Par. 0196 different color channels have different resolutions, i.e. color specific settings).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the image of Robbins can have different color channels with different resolutions as Sears discloses. The motivation for doing so would have been that different colors are perceived by the eye with different sensitivities so each color channel may not need full resolution to be perceived in the manner required by the eye.
In regards to claim 23, Robbins and Sears, as combined above, disclose a third waveguide (Robbins Fig. 2, 206 waveguide) to output a third subset of the light (Robbins Fig. 2, light input and output to/from 206 waveguide; Robbins Par. 0021 three subsets of light are applied a different polarization, i.e. color specific settings, for each waveguide).
In regards to claim 27, Robbins and Sears, as combined above, disclose the first waveguide (Robbins Fig. 2, 202 waveguide) and the second waveguide (Robbins Fig. 2, 204 waveguide) have different eye boxes (Robbins Par. 0021 each waveguide was a different FOV, i.e. eyebox).
In regards to claim 28, Robbins and Sears, as combined above, disclose the first waveguide (Robbins Fig. 2, 202 waveguide) and the second waveguide (Robbins Fig. 2, 204 waveguide) have different fields of view (Robbins Par. 0021 each waveguide was a different FOV).
In regards to claim 29, Robbins and Sears, as combined above, disclose in-couplers (Robbins Fig. 2, 214 polarizing beamsplitters, i.e. in-couplers of waveguides 202, 204, and 206) of the first waveguide (Robbins Fig. 2, 202 waveguide) and the second waveguide (Robbins Fig. 2, 204 waveguide) are not spatially separated (Robbins Fig. 2, 214 polarizing beamsplitters, i.e. in-couplers of waveguides 202, 204, and 206, are not spatially separated as viewed in a light propagation direction).
In regards to claim 30, Robbins and Sears, as combined above, disclose out-couplers (Robbins Fig. 1 and 2, out-couplers of waveguides 202, 204, and 206) of the first waveguide (Robbins Fig. 2, 202 waveguide) and the second waveguide (Robbins Fig. 2, 204 waveguide) are spatially separated (Robbins Fig. 1 and 2, out-couplers of waveguides 202, 204, and 206 are spatially separated to provide wider FOV; Robbins Par. 0021 each waveguide provides different FOV to collectively provide an increased FOV).
In regards to claim 31, Robbins and Sears, as combined above, disclose the out-couplers (Robbins Fig. 1 and 2, out-couplers of waveguides 202, 204, and 206) of the first waveguide (Robbins Fig. 2, 202 waveguide) and the second waveguide (Robbins Fig. 2, 204 waveguide) have different sizes (Robbins Fig. 1 and 2, out-couplers of waveguides 202, 204, and 206 have different location and sizes to provide wider FOV; Robbins Par. 0021 each waveguide provides different FOV to collectively provide an increased FOV).
In regards to claim 32, Robbins and Sears, as combined above, disclose the first subset of the light (Robbins Fig. 2, light input and output to/from 202 waveguide) and the second subset of the light (Robbins Fig. 2, light input and output to/from 204 waveguide) include all three colors (Robbins Fig. 1, 108 image microdisplay; Robbins Par. 0016 “image microdisplay 108 can be implemented as a liquid crystal on silicon (LCOS) microdisplay that projects the light of the virtual image through the imaging optic 110 into the waveguides”; the microdisplay displays all three colors for each waveguide to provide the wider FOV).
In regards to claim 33, Robbins does not disclose expressly the first subset of the light has a higher resolution than the second subset of the light.
Sears disclose the first subset of the light has a higher resolution than the second subset of the light (Par. 0196 different color channels have different resolutions, i.e. color specific settings).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the image of Robbins can have different color channels with different resolutions as Sears discloses. The motivation for doing so would have been that different colors are perceived by the eye with different sensitivities so each color channel may not need full resolution to be perceived in the manner required by the eye.
Claim(s) 24 and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robbins, US-20130322810, in view of Klug, US-20160327789.
In regards to claim 24, Robbins and Sears do not disclose expressly the first subset of the light has a different focal distance than the second subset of the light.
Klug discloses the first subset of the light has a different focal distance than the second subset of the light (Klug Fig. 5, 1090 LOE, i.e. light guiding optical element, Klug Fig. 6, 2090 LOE, i.e. light guiding optical element; Klug Par. 0072 “Each LOE 1090 is then configured to project an image or sub-image that appears to originate from a desired depth plane or FOV angular position onto a user's retina.”; each waveguide can project it’s subset of light to a different depth plane, i.e. focal distance).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the waveguides of Robbins can project their subset of the light to a desired depth plane, i.e. focal distance, in the manner of Klug. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide image depth to the user.
In regards to claim 34, Robbins and Sears do not disclose expressly the first subset of the light has a different focal distance than the second subset of the light.
Klug discloses the first subset of the light has a different focal distance than the second subset of the light (Klug Fig. 5, 1090 LOE, i.e. light guiding optical element, Klug Fig. 6, 2090 LOE, i.e. light guiding optical element; Klug Par. 0072 “Each LOE 1090 is then configured to project an image or sub-image that appears to originate from a desired depth plane or FOV angular position onto a user's retina.”; each waveguide can project it’s subset of light to a different depth plane, i.e. focal distance).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the waveguides of Robbins can project their subset of the light to a desired depth plane, i.e. focal distance, in the manner of Klug. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide image depth to the user.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CORY A ALMEIDA whose telephone number is (571)270-3143. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9AM-730PM.
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, Nitin (Kumar) Patel can be reached at (571) 272-7677. 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.
/CORY A ALMEIDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2628 3/12/26