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
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richards et al (CN 111158079 B) in view of Lin et al (US 10670224) further in view of Takagi et al (US 10735701)
Regarding Claim 1,
Richards et al discloses (Fig. 1) a display device comprising: an image generating device (“…the display source 210 generates the display light 210..”) that generates image light that indicates an image; a first light guide (optical waveguide 101) that includes a first output hologram element (“…The outer-coupling region 245 includes an outer-coupling optical element 230 for redirecting the display light 260 out of the optical waveguide 215...”) from which the image light exits; the image light emitted from the image generating device enters the first light guide (see claim 8 “…a display source for generating the display light, wherein the display source is arranged to illuminate the inner coupling region of the optical waveguide with the display light, wherein the display source is arranged so that the display light obliquely enters the optical waveguide in an outer-sheet orientation associated with the optical waveguide…”)
The prior art does not disclose a second light guide that includes a second output hologram element from which the image light exits, wherein each of the first light guide and the second light guide is in a curved shape, a portion of the image light that has entered the first light guide enters the second light guide, and a light quantity distribution of the image light exiting the first output hologram element is different from a light quantity distribution of the image light exiting the second output hologram element.
Lin et al (see claim 11) a second light guide (second optic) that includes a second output hologram element from which the image light exits, a portion of the image light that has entered the first light guide (first optic) enters the second light guide (second optic), and a light quantity distribution of the image light exiting the first output hologram element is different from a light quantity distribution of the image light exiting the second output hologram element.
Takagi et al discloses (claim 1) wherein each of the first light guide and the second light guide is in a curved shape.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Richards et al to include Sugiyama et al’s second light guide that includes a second output hologram element from which the image light exits, a portion of the image light that has entered the first light guide enters the second light guide, and a light quantity distribution of the image light exiting the first output hologram element is different from a light quantity distribution of the image light exiting the second output hologram element to further include Takagi et al’s each of the first light guide and the second light guide is in a curved shape motivated by the desire to improve brightness uniformity and compensate for optical losses associated with propagation through curved waveguides, and optimizing image quality across the display.
Regarding Claim 2,
In addition to Richards et al, Sugiyama et al, and Takagi et al, Takagi et al (Claim 1 and figure 10a) discloses wherein the first light guide is curved to be bent upward relative to a horizontal direction, and the light quantity distribution of the image light exiting the first output hologram element differs depending on a horizontal position on the first output hologram element.
Regarding Claim 3,
In addition to Richards et al, Sugiyama et al, and Takagi et al, Takagi et al (Claim 1 and figure 10a) discloses wherein an angle of the image light exiting the first light guide relative to a surface of the first light guide differs depending on an exit position of the image light on the surface of the first light guide.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richards et al (CN 111158079 B) and of Lin et al (US 10670224) and of Takagi et al (US 10735701) in view of Nakada et al (US 20200353817)
Regarding Claim 4,
Richards et al, Sugiyama et al, and Takagi et al discloses everything as disclosed above.
Richards et al, Sugiyama et al, and Takagi et al do not disclose wherein the light quantity distribution of the image light exiting the first output hologram element increases with a decrease in the angle of the image light exiting the first light guide.
Nakada et al discloses wherein the light quantity distribution of the image light exiting the first output hologram element increases with a decrease in the angle of the image light exiting the first light guide [0083].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Richards et al, Sugiyama et al, and Takagi et al to include Nakada et als’ light quantity distribution of the image light exiting the first output hologram element increases with a decrease in the angle of the image light exiting the first light guide motivated by the desire to ensure good visibility.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5-14, are 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.
Regarding Claim 5,
The prior art does not disclose wherein the first output hologram element includes a first region and a second region that is different from the first region, an average value of angles of the image light exiting a region of the first light guide corresponding to the first region is greater than an average value of angles of the image light exiting a region of the first light guide corresponding to the second region, and the light quantity distribution in the first region of the first output hologram element is smaller than the light quantity distribution in the second region of the first output hologram element.
Regarding Claim 6,
The prior art does not disclose nor would it be obvious to combine all the references together and to add another reference to disclose a third light guide that is in a curved shape and includes a third output hologram element, wherein a portion of the image light that has entered the first light guide enters the second light guide, a portion of the image light that has entered the second light guide enters the third light guide, and the light quantity distribution of the image light exiting the second output hologram element differs depending on a horizontal position on the second output hologram element.
Claims 7-11 depends on Claim 6, therefore are objected.
Regarding Claim 12,
The prior art does not disclose nor would it be obvious to combine all the references together and to add another reference to disclose a third light guide that is in a curved shape and includes a third output hologram element; and a phase retarder from which the image light that has exited the third light guide enters, the phase retarder applying a phase shift to a deflection component of the image light that has entered the phase retarder before the image light exits the phase retarder.
Claim 13 depends on Claim 12, therefore is objected.
Regarding Claim 14,
The prior art does not disclose nor would it be obvious to combine all the references together and to add another reference to disclose wherein the light quantity distribution of the image light exiting the first output hologram element depends on a diffraction efficiency that indicates a rate of an intensity of the image light diffracted by the first output hologram element relative to an intensity of the image light entering the first output hologram element, and the light quantity distribution of the image light exiting the second output hologram element depends on a diffraction efficiency that indicates a rate of an intensity of the image light diffracted by the second output hologram element relative to an intensity of the image light entering the second output hologram element.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUCY P CHIEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8579. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM PST 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, Michael Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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.
/LUCY P CHIEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights