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 .
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, the “reflecting mirrors” in claim 4 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 10, line 31, “above. however” should be “above. However,”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5-7, 15, 18, 21, and 23 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 4 and 5, “surfaces , the” should be “surfaces, the”.
Claim 1, line 6, “region ;” should be “region;”.
Claim 1, line 17, “LOE , and” should be “LOE, and”.
Claim 1, line 18, “reflector , the” should be “reflector, the”.
Claim 1, line 19, “region , the” should be “region, the”.
Claim 5, line 1, “claim 1 wherein” should be “claim 1, wherein”.
Claim 6, line 1, “claim 1 wherein” should be “claim 1, wherein”.
Claim 6, line 1, “(28)” should be removed.
Claim 6, line 3, “region , the” should be “region, the”.
Claim 7, line 1, “(28)” should be removed.
Claim 15, line 2, “projectorand” should be “projector and”.
Claim 18, lines 3 and 6, “surfaces , that” should be “surfaces, that”.
Claim 18, line 7, “region ;” should be “region;”.
Claim 18, line 16, “LOE , the” should be “LOE, the”.
Claim 18, line 17 “reflectors , where” should be “reflectors, where”.
Claim 18, line 18, “LOE,and” should be “LOE, and”.
Claim 18, line 19, “reflector , the” should be “reflector, the”.
Claim 18, line 20, “region , image” should be “region, image”.
Claim 18, line 21, “(36)” should be removed.
Claim 18, line 23, “(10)” should be removed.
Claim 18, line 24, “region ,” should be “region,”.
Claim 21, line 1, “claim 18 wherein” should be “claim 18, wherein”.
Claim 23, line 4, “into the LOE.” should be removed.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 12-14, and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schowengerdt et al., US 2018/0374266 A1 (of record; hereinafter referred to as Schowengerdt).
As to claim 1, Schowengerdt teaches (Figs. 2, 5-6, 60-63) an optical system (100, virtual image generation system 100, para [0161], Fig. 2) for displaying an image (104, a display subsystem for displaying an image, para [0164], Fig. 2) to an eye of a user (50, 52, the eyes 52 of the end user 50, para [0164], Fig. 2) comprising:
(a) a light-guide optical element (LOE) (172, planar optical waveguide 172, para [0194], Fig. 6) having two planar major external surfaces that are parallel (180a, 180b, the planar optical waveguide 172 has a first face 180a and a second face 180b, para [0194], Fig. 6) so as to support propagation of image illumination within the LOE by internal reflection at the major external surfaces (182a, 182b, the first and the second faces 180a, 180b form at least on partially internally reflective optical path, illustrated by solid line arrow 182a and broken line arrow 182b, along the length 178 of the planar optical waveguide 172, para [0194], Fig. 6), the LOE having a thickness h between the major external surfaces (180a, 180b, the thickness is the distance between the external surfaces, Fig. 6), the LOE having a coupling-in region (168’, 192a, the pre-pupil expansion element (PPE) 192a comprises an in-coupling (IC) element 168’, para [0311], Fig. 61) and a propagation region (172, the light beamlets 256’ are input in the IC element 168 of the primary waveguide apparatus 170 as in-coupled light beamlets 252(1)-252(4), then split by the OPE element 186 into four sets of orthogonal light beamlets 254(1)-254(4) which are further split by the EPE element 188 into final out-coupled light beamlets 256, thus the regions above the OPE element 186 and EPE element 188 are the propagation region, para [0317], Figs. 61-62);
(b) the coupling-in region configured for coupling into the LOE image illumination corresponding to a collimated image so as to propagate the image illumination within the propagation region of the LOE by internal reflection (250, 168’, the PPE 192a comprises an IC element 168’ disposed on the face 180b’ of the waveguide 172’ for receiving the collimated light beam 250 from the collimating element 166 which then couples the collimated light beam 250 into the waveguide 172, para [0311], Fig. 61);
(c) a coupling-out configuration associated with the propagation region of the LOE and configured for coupling out at least part of the image illumination from the LOE towards the eye of the user (188, 52, 50, the light beamlets 254(1)-254(4) are further split by the EPE element 188 into final out-coupled light beamlets 256 that exit the face 180b of waveguide 172 towards the eye(s) 52 of the end user 50, para [0317], Figs. 61-62);
(d) a beam-multiplication configuration associated with the LOE and configured for beam multiplication of the image illumination introduced into the coupling-in region of the LOE (252’, 254’, the in-coupled light beam 252’ is divided into multiple orthogonal light beamlets 254’, paras [0313]-[0314], Figs. 61-62), the beam-multiplication configuration comprising
m partial reflectors (172’, 180b’, the waveguide 172 comprises a plurality of layered substrates having at least one pair of adjacent substrates and a semi-reflective interface between each of the pair(s)of adjacent substrates, such that a light beam that intersects each semi-reflective interface is split into multiple beamlets, thus the planar optical waveguide 172’ has semi-reflective interface at surface 180b’ resulting in beamlets 252’ and 254’, paras [0265] and [0313]-[0314], Figs. 61-62), where m is a positive integer (172’, there is one waveguide 172’ which is a positive integer, Fig. 61), the m partial reflectors being external to the LOE and parallel to the major external surfaces of the LOE (172’, the planar optical waveguide 172’ is external to the primary waveguide 170 and runs parallel to surface 180b, para [0311], Fig. 61), and further comprising a reflector (180a’, surface 180a is a reflecting surface as described in para [0276] and Figs. 47A-C, also as shown in Fig. 62 the surface 180a’ is a reflecting surface, Fig. 62), the m partial reflectors and the reflector being arranged to reflect, into the propagation region, the image illumination that was introduced into the coupling-in region so as to fully illuminate the propagation region with both the collimated image and a conjugate of the collimated image (172’, the in-coupled light beam 252’ propagates within the waveguide 172’, are divided into multiple beamlets 254’ and out-coupled as light beamlets 256’, the out-coupled beamlets 256’ are input into the primary waveguide 170 as in-coupled light beamlets 252(1)-252(4) which are split into beamlets 254(1)-254(4), thus fully illuminating the propagation region, paras [0313-[0317], Figs. 61-62);
wherein the m partial reflectors extend along a length of the LOE adjacent to the coupling-in region (172’, the PPE 192a takes the form of a waveguide apparatus 170’ having a size commensurate with the size of the IC element 168 of the primary waveguide apparatus 170… the mini-waveguide apparatus 170’ comprises a planar optical waveguide 172’, para [0311], Figs. 61-62).
As to claim 2, Schowengerdt teaches the optical system of claim 1, wherein the m partial reflectors extend along a length of the LOE adjacent only to the coupling-in region (172’, the PPE 192a takes the form of a waveguide apparatus 170’ having a size commensurate with the size of the IC element 168 of the primary waveguide apparatus 170… the mini-waveguide apparatus 170’ comprises a planar optical waveguide 172’, thus as shown in Fig. 61 the optical waveguide 172’ is adjacent only to the coupling-in region 168 of the primary waveguide apparatus 170, para [0311], Figs. 61-62).
As to claim 3, Schowengerdt teaches the optical system of claim 1, wherein an air barrier surrounds the propagation region such that image illumination introduced into the propagation region undergoes total internal reflection (TIR) between the major external surfaces (172, the display screen 110 takes the form of a waveguide apparatus 170 that includes a planar optical waveguide 172 that provides total internal reflection for light striking the faces 180, as the display screen propagation region of the optical waveguide 172 is surrounded by air, paras [0193]-[0194], Figs. 5 and 6).
As to claim 5, Schowengerdt teaches the optical system of claim 1, wherein the m partial reflectors partially extend along the length of the lower major external surface of the LOE adjacent to the coupling-in region (172’, 180b, the PPE 192a comprising the waveguide 172’ is mounted to the IC element 168, paras [0310]-[0311], Fig. 61).
As to claim 6, Schowengerdt teaches the optical system of claim 1, wherein end points of the m partial reflectors are edges of the partial reflectors (172’, the left side of the waveguide 172’ in the y-axis direction is considered the edge, Fig. 61), the edges being adjacent and perpendicular between the coupling-in region and the propagation region, the edges configured to prevent image illumination from entering the propagation region (172’, the edge of the waveguide 172’ is adjacent and perpendicular to the regions above the OPE element 186 and EPE element 188 which are the propagation region, para [0317], Figs. 61-62).
As to claim 8, Schowengerdt teaches the optical system of claim 1, wherein the reflector is provided by an external surface of the mth transparent plate (180a’, the reflecting surface 180a’ is an external face of the waveguide 172’, para [0311], Fig. 61), being the transparent plate furthest from the LOE (172’, the planar optical waveguide 172’ is a substrate of optically transparent material, para [0311], Fig. 61), said external surface being configured for full reflection via TIR (172’, 180a’, the in-coupled light beam 252’ propagates within the waveguide 172’ via TIR where 90% of light beam 252’ is reflected to propagate via TIR along the y-axis and the remaining 10% of the light beam 252’ propagates along the x-axis via TIR, thus full reflection via TIR takes place at the reflecting surface 180a’, para [0313], Fig. 61).
As to claim 12, Schowengerdt teaches the optical system of claim 1, further including an image projector (108, the image projection assembly 108, para [0185], Fig. 5) for generating image illumination corresponding to a collimated image (250, the image projection assembly 108 comprises an optical coupling assembly 164 comprising a collimation element 166 that produces collimated light beam 250, para [0188], Figs. 5 and 61), the image projector being optically coupled to the LOE so as to introduce the image illumination into the coupling-in region of the LOE so as to propagate within the propagation region of the LOE by internal reflection (250, 168’, the collimated light beam 250 is optically coupled into the waveguide 172 through the PPE 192a via internal reflection, para [0311], Figs. 61-62).
As to claim 13, Schowengerdt teaches the optical system of claim 1, further comprising a coupling-in configuration associated with the coupling-in region of the LOE (164, the optical coupling assembly 164 couples the light from the scanning device 152 into the in-coupling element 168’, paras [0188] and [0311], Figs. 5 and 61) and configured for coupling in the image illumination into the LOE (168, the PPE 192a comprises an IC element 168’ disposed on the face 180b’ of the waveguide 172’ for receiving the collimated light beam 250 from the collimating element 166 which then couples the collimated light beam 250 into the waveguide 172, para [0311], Fig. 61) so as to propagate within the LOE by internal reflection (172, the planar optical waveguide 172 that provides total internal reflection for light striking the faces 180, the light beamlets 252(1)-252(4) and 254(1)-254(4) propagation through the optical waveguide 172 via internal reflection, paras [0317] and [0193]-[0194], Figs. 5-6 and 61-62).
As to claim 14, Schowengerdt teaches the optical system of claim 13, wherein the coupling-in configuration comprises a wedge prism positioned between an image projector and the coupling-in region of the LOE (164, the optical coupling subsystem 164 comprises an in-coupling element 168 which is a prism located between the light source 150 and drive electronics 162 and the in-coupling region of the display screen 110, para [0188], Fig. 5).
As to claim 17, Schowengerdt teaches the optical system of claim 1, wherein the coupling-out configuration comprises a diffractive element (188, the EPE element 188 is one of the diffractive optical elements (DOE) 174 that out-couples light beamlets 256 to exit the face 180b of the waveguide 172 towards the eye(s) 52 of the end user, paras [0252] and [0317], Fig. 61).
As to claim 18, Schowengerdt teaches (Figs. 2, 5-6, 60-63) an optical system (100, virtual image generation system 100, para [0161], Fig. 2) for displaying an image (104, a display subsystem for displaying an image, para [0164], Fig. 2) to an eye of a user (50, 52, the eyes 52 of the end user 50, para [0164], Fig. 2) comprising:
(a) a light-guide optical element (LOE) (172, planar optical waveguide 172, para [0194], Fig. 6) including a guided dimension (180a, 180b, the first and the second faces 180a, 180b form at least on partially internally reflective optical path along the length 178 of the planar optical waveguide 172 and is considered the guided dimension, para [0194], Fig. 6) and a non-guided dimension (262, 264, optical paths 262 and 264 along the y-axis and x-axis are considered the non-guided dimension, para [0313], Figs. 61-62), the LOE having two planar major external surfaces, that are parallel (180a, 180b, the planar optical waveguide 172 has a first face 180a and a second face 180b, para [0194], Fig. 6) so as to support propagation in the guided dimension of image illumination within the LOE by internal reflection at the major external surfaces (182a, 182b, the first and the second faces 180a, 180b form at least on partially internally reflective optical path, illustrated by solid line arrow 182a and broken line arrow 182b, along the length 178 of the planar optical waveguide 172, para [0194], Fig. 6) the LOE having a thickness h between the major external surfaces (180a, 180b, the thickness is the distance between the external surfaces, Fig. 6), the LOE having a coupling-in region (168’, 192a, the pre-pupil expansion element (PPE) 192a comprises an in-coupling (IC) element 168’, para [0311], Fig. 61) and a propagation region (172, the light beamlets 256’ are input in the IC element 168 of the primary waveguide apparatus 170 as in-coupled light beamlets 252(1)-252(4), then split by the OPE element 186 into four sets of orthogonal light beamlets 254(1)-254(4) which are further split by the EPE element 188 into final out-coupled light beamlets 256, thus the regions above the OPE element 186 and EPE element 188 are the propagation region, para [0317], Figs. 61-62);
(b) the coupling-in region configured for coupling into the LOE image illumination corresponding to a collimated image so as to propagate the image illumination within the LOE (250, 168’, the PPE 192a comprises an IC element 168’ disposed on the face 180b’ of the waveguide 172’ for receiving the collimated light beam 250 from the collimating element 166 which then couples the collimated light beam 250 into the waveguide 172, para [0311], Fig. 61), the propagation in the guided dimension in the propagation region of the LOE by internal reflection (172, the light beamlets 252(1)-252(4) propagate along the 262 optical path and the light beamlets 254(1)-254(4) propagate along the 264 optical path, para [0317], Figs. 61-62);
(c) a coupling-out configuration configured for coupling out at least part of the image illumination from the LOE towards the eye of the user (188, 52, 50, the light beamlets 254(1)-254(4) are further split by the EPE element 188 into final out-coupled light beamlets 256 that exit the face 180b of waveguide 172 towards the eye(s) 52 of the end user 50, para [0317], Figs. 61-62);
(d) a beam-multiplication configuration associated with the LOE and configured for beam multiplication of the image illumination introduced into the coupling-in region of the LOE (252’, 254’, the in-coupled light beam 252’ is divided into multiple orthogonal light beamlets 254’, paras [0313]-[0314], Figs. 61-62), the beam-multiplication configuration comprising
m partial reflectors (172’, 180b’, the waveguide 172 comprises a plurality of layered substrates having at least one pair of adjacent substrates and a semi-reflective interface between each of the pair(s)of adjacent substrates, such that a light beam that intersects each semi-reflective interface is split into multiple beamlets, thus the planar optical waveguide 172’ has semi-reflective interface at surface 180b’ resulting in beamlets 252’ and 254’, paras [0265] and [0313]-[0314], Figs. 61-62), where m is a positive integer (172’, there is one waveguide 172’ which is a positive integer, Fig. 61), the m partial reflectors being external to the LOE and parallel to the major external surfaces of the LOE (172’, the planar optical waveguide 172’ is external to the primary waveguide 170 and runs parallel to surface 180b, para [0311], Fig. 61), and further comprising a reflector (180a’, surface 180a is a reflecting surface as described in para [0276] and Figs. 47A-C, also as shown in Fig. 62 the surface 180a’ is a reflecting surface, Fig. 62), the m partial reflectors and the reflector being arranged to reflect, into the propagation region, image illumination that was introduced into the coupling-in region so as to fully illuminate the propagation region with both the collimated image and a conjugate of the collimated image (172’, the in-coupled light beam 252’ propagates within the waveguide 172’, are divided into multiple beamlets 254’ and out-coupled as light beamlets 256’, the out-coupled beamlets 256’ are input into the primary waveguide 170 as in-coupled light beamlets 252(1)-252(4) which are split into beamlets 254(1)-254(4), thus fully illuminating the propagation region, paras [0313-[0317], Figs. 61-62);
wherein the m partial reflectors extend along a length of the LOE adjacent to the coupling-in region (172’, the PPE 192a takes the form of a waveguide apparatus 170’ having a size commensurate with the size of the IC element 168 of the primary waveguide apparatus 170… the mini-waveguide apparatus 170’ comprises a planar optical waveguide 172’, para [0311], Figs. 61-62),
wherein the beam-multiplication configuration is a second beam-multiplication configuration configured to provide beam multiplication in the non-guided dimension (252’, 254’, the in-coupled light beamlets 252’ propagate along the 262 optical path and are divided into multiple orthogonal light beamlets 254’ that propagate along the 264 optical path, paras [0313]-[0314], Figs. 61-62).
As to claim 19, Schowengerdt teaches the optical system of claim 18 further including:
a first beam-multiplication configuration configured to provide beam multiplication in the guided dimension (180a’, 180b’, the first and the second faces 180a’, 180b’ form a partially internally reflective optical path along the length of the planar optical waveguide 172’ and is along the guided dimension of multiplied beamlets 252’, 254’, paras [0313]-[0314], Figs. 61-62).
As to claim 20, Schowengerdt teaches the optical system of claim 18, further comprising a coupling-in configuration associated with the coupling-in region of the LOE (164, the optical coupling assembly 164 couples the light from the scanning device 152 into the in-coupling element 168’, paras [0188] and [0311], Figs. 5 and 61) and configured for coupling in the image illumination into the LOE (168, the PPE 192a comprises an IC element 168’ disposed on the face 180b’ of the waveguide 172’ for receiving the collimated light beam 250 from the collimating element 166 which then couples the collimated light beam 250 into the waveguide 172, para [0311], Fig. 61).
As to claim 21, Schowengerdt teaches the optical system of claim 18, wherein the coupling-in configuration includes a wedge prism positioned between an image projector and the coupling-in region of the LOE (164, the optical coupling subsystem 164 comprises an in-coupling element 168 which is a prism located between the light source 150 and drive electronics 162 and the in-coupling region of the display screen 110, para [0188], Fig. 5) and configured for coupling into the non-guided dimension image illumination corresponding to a collimated image (250, 168’, the PPE 192a comprises an IC element 168’ disposed on the face 180b’ of the waveguide 172’ for receiving the collimated light beam 250 from the collimating element 166 which then couples the collimated light beam 250 into the waveguide 172, para [0311], Fig. 61).
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 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schowengerdt et al., US 2018/0374266 A1 (of record; hereinafter referred to as Schowengerdt).
As to claim 4, the current embodiment of Schowengerdt does not teach the optical system of claim 1, wherein reflecting mirrors surround the propagation region such that image illumination introduced into the propagation region undergoes total internal reflection (TIR) between the major external surfaces.
The embodiments of Schowengerdt are related as optical systems.
However, an alternate embodiment of Schowengerdt teaches (Fig. 56) an optical system, wherein reflecting mirrors surround the propagation region such that image illumination introduced into the propagation region undergoes total internal reflection (TIR) between the major external surfaces (190, the semi-reflective interface 190 surrounds the propagation region and light beamlets 252 propagate via TIR, para [0303], Fig. 56).
Therefore, 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 embodiment of Schowengerdt with reflecting mirrors surround the propagation region such that image illumination introduced into the propagation region undergoes total internal reflection (TIR) between the major external surfaces of an alternate embodiment of Schowengerdt, because doing so increases the density of the out-coupled light beamlets exiting the waveguide (para [0265]).
As to claim 7, Schowengerdt teaches the optical system of claim 1, wherein the m partial reflectors are provided by m transparent plates (172’, the planar optical waveguide 172’ is a substrate of optically transparent material, para [0311], Fig. 61), each plate having a pair of major parallel external surfaces (180a’, 180b’, the planar optical waveguide 172’ has a first face 180a’ and a second face 180b’, para [0311], Fig. 61), the m plates bonded to a major external surface of the LOE (172’, 180b, the PPE 192a comprising the waveguide 172’ is mounted to the IC element 168, paras [0310]-[0311], Fig. 61).
The current embodiment of Schowengerdt does not teach the m plates bonded together at their respective major parallel surfaces to form a stack.
The embodiments of Schowengerdt are related as optical systems.
However, an alternate embodiment of Schowengerdt teaches (Figs. 80-86) an optical system (170, waveguide apparatus 170, para [0349], Fig. 81), wherein m plates are bonded together at their respective major parallel surfaces to form a stack (222a, 222b, mini-waveguide apparatus 220 comprises a plurality of waveguide assemblies 222, a top waveguide assembly 222a and a bottom waveguide assembly 222b, the top surface 224a of the bottom waveguide assembly 222b is affixed to the bottom surface 224b of the top waveguide assembly 222a, paras [0350]-[0351], Figs. 81-82).
Therefore, 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 embodiment of Schowengerdt with the m plates bonded together at their respective major parallel surfaces to form a stack of the alternate embodiment of Schowengerdt, because doing so maximizes the density of the in-fill of the exit pupil, and thus, the exit pupil of the display screen (para [0363]).
Claims 9, 15, 16, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schowengerdt et al., US 2018/0374266 A1 (of record; hereinafter referred to as Schowengerdt), and further in view of Tanaka, US 2018/0307014 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Tanaka).
As to claim 9, Schowengerdt does not teach the optical system of claim 1, wherein the reflector is provided by a mirror.
Schowengerdt and Tanaka are related as optical elements.
However, Tanaka teaches (Figs. 1-15) an optical element (200, light guide unit 200, para [0076], Fig. 8), wherein the reflector is provided by a mirror (212, the reflective surface 212 is a silver coating, thus is a mirror, para [0079], Fig. 8).
Therefore, 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 optical system of Schowengerdt with the reflector provided by a mirror of Tanaka, because regions where luminous flux is not present do not occur and the output mechanism can be made smaller and lighter (para [0037]).
As to claim 15, Schowengerdt does not teach the optical system of claim 13, wherein the coupling-in configuration comprises a slanted edge at one end of the LOE between an image projector and the coupling-in region of the LOE.
Schowengerdt and Tanaka are related as optical elements.
However, Tanaka teaches (Fig. 13) an optical element (200, light guide unit 200, para [0076], Fig. 13), wherein the coupling-in configuration comprises a slanted edge at one end of the LOE between an image projector and the coupling-in region of the LOE (10c, the coupling-in region comprises right surface 10c which is slanted and between the image projector 42 and coupling-in region of the light guide, Fig. 13).
Therefore, 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 optical system of Schowengerdt to comprise a coupling-in configuration comprises a slanted edge at one end of the LOE between the image projector and the coupling-in region of the LOE of Tanaka, because doing so improves productivity by avoiding the concentration of complex processing on a single substrate (para [0030]).
As to claim 16, Schowengerdt does not teach the optical system of claim 1, wherein the coupling-out configuration comprises a plurality of mutually parallel facets angled obliquely to the major external surfaces of the LOE.
Schowengerdt and Tanaka are related as optical elements.
However, Tanaka teaches (Fig. 8) an optical element (200, light guide unit 200, para [0076], Fig. 8),) wherein the coupling-out configuration comprises a plurality of mutually parallel facets angled obliquely to the major external surfaces of the LOE (11, the beam splitter surfaces 11a, 11b, and 11c reflect the luminous flux of the inputted image display light La, Lb, and Lc toward the viewer, para [0088], Fig. 8).
Therefore, 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 optical system of Schowengerdt with the coupling-out configuration comprising a plurality of mutually parallel facets angled obliquely to the major external surfaces of the LOE of Tanaka, because doing so makes it possible to make the brightness (light quality) more uniform (para [0038]).
As to claim 22, Schowengerdt teaches the optical system of claim 18, wherein the coupling-in configuration includes an edge at one end of the LOE between an image projector and the coupling-in region of the LOE (164, the optical coupling subsystem 164 comprises an in-coupling element 168 located between the light source 150 and drive electronics 162 and the in-coupling region of the display screen 110, para [0188], Fig. 5) and configured for coupling into the non-guided dimension image illumination corresponding to a collimated image (250, 168’, the PPE 192a comprises an IC element 168’ disposed on the face 180b’ of the waveguide 172’ for receiving the collimated light beam 250 from the collimating element 166 which then couples the collimated light beam 250 into the waveguide 172, para [0311], Fig. 61).
Schowengerdt does not teach the coupling-in configuration includes a slanted edge at one end of the LOE between an image projector and the coupling-in region of the LOE.
Schowengerdt and Tanaka are related as optical elements.
However, Tanaka teaches (Fig. 13) an optical element (200, light guide unit 200, para [0076], Fig. 13), wherein the coupling-in configuration comprises a slanted edge at one end of the LOE between an image projector and the coupling-in region of the LOE (10c, the coupling-in region comprises right surface 10c which is slanted and between the image projector 42 and coupling-in region of the light guide, Fig. 13).
Therefore, 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 optical system of Schowengerdt to comprise a coupling-in configuration comprises a slanted edge at one end of the LOE between the image projector and the coupling-in region of the LOE of Tanaka, because doing so improves productivity by avoiding the concentration of complex processing on a single substrate (para [0030]).
As to claim 23, Schowengerdt does not teach the optical system of claim 18, wherein the coupling-in configuration includes an air gap adjacent to a 1st of the m partial reflectors, the air gap configured for beam diameter magnification of the image illumination into the LOE.
Schowengerdt and Tanaka are related as optical elements.
However, Tanaka teaches (Fig. 13) an optical element (200, light guide unit 200, para [0076], Fig. 13), wherein the coupling-in configuration includes an air gap adjacent to a 1st of the m partial reflectors, the air gap configured for beam diameter magnification of the image illumination into the LOE (212, the reflective surface 212 is arranged in the right part of the main substrate 210, the reflective surface may have a medium such as air to the right of the reflective surface, para [0079], Fig. 8).
Therefore, 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 optical system of Schowengerdt wherein the coupling-in configuration includes an air gap adjacent to a 1st of the m partial reflectors, the air gap configured for beam diameter magnification of the image illumination into the LOE of Tanaka, because the refractive index difference thereof may be utilized (para [0079]).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schowengerdt et al., US 2018/0374266 A1 (of record; hereinafter referred to as Schowengerdt), and further in view of Parsons et al., US 10,571,699 B1 (hereinafter referred to as Parsons).
As to claim 10, Schowengerdt does not teach the optical system of claim 7, wherein each of the m plates has a thickness that is equal to 1/(m + 1) of h.
Schowengerdt and Parsons are related as waveguides displays.
However, Parsons teaches (Figs. 1-5) an optical device comprising a light-guide optical element with parallel sides and a beam-multiplication configuration (510, output waveguide 510 is an optical waveguide that includes substrate 515, additional substrate 520, and partially reflective layers 252 for pupil replication, column 7, lines 55-64, Fig. 5), wherein each of the m plates has a thickness that is equal to 1/(m + 1) of h (d1, d2, additional substrate 520 is substantially similar to the substrate 515 except for the thickness, there is one additional substrate thus m=1 and 1/(m+1)=1/2 of h, in one example the thickness d2 of the additional substrate 520 is 200 microns and the thickness d1 of the additional substrate 515 is 300 microns, in another example the thickness d2 of the additional substrate 520 is 100 microns and the thickness d1 of the additional substrate 515 is 500 microns, giving a range of 0.20≤d2/d1≤0.67. This range includes the thickness of the additional substrate being half the thickness of the optical thickness, d2/d1=0.5, column 8, lines 8-17, Fig. 5).
It has been held that "A prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP §2144.05(I).
In the current instance Parsons discloses a range of 0.20≤d2/d1≤0.67 which encompasses the narrower claimed range of 1/(m+1)=0.5. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose a value of 1/(m+1)=d2/d1=0.5 within the narrower claimed range, because it has been held that "A prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP §2144.05(I). Note that, in the current instance, 1/(m+1) is an art recognized results effective variable in that the pupil replication density of the waveguide is determined by the thickness of the substrate and the thickness of the additional substrates as taught by Parsons (Parsons, column 8, lines 18-23). Thus one would have been motivated to optimize the additional substrate thickness such that 1/(m+1)=0.5 because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.”
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because doing so increases pupil replication density and, thereby, increases homogeneity of the resulting image (column 2, lines 61-65).
As to claim 11, Schowengerdt does not teach the optical system of claim 1, wherein the beam-multiplication configuration is configured to compensate for 1/(m + 1) aperture filling.
Schowengerdt and Parsons are related as waveguides displays.
However, Parsons teaches (Figs. 1-5) an optical device comprising a light-guide optical element with parallel sides and a beam-multiplication configuration (510, output waveguide 510 is an optical waveguide that includes substrate 515, additional substrate 520, and partially reflective layers 252 for pupil replication, column 7, lines 55-64, Fig. 5), wherein the beam-multiplication configuration is configured to compensate for 1/(m + 1) aperture filling (d1, d2, additional substrate 520 is substantially similar to the substrate 515 except for the thickness, there is one additional substrate thus m=1 and 1/(m+1)=1/2 of h, in one example the thickness d2 of the additional substrate 520 is 200 microns and the thickness d1 of the additional substrate 515 is 300 microns, in another example the thickness d2 of the additional substrate 520 is 100 microns and the thickness d1 of the additional substrate 515 is 500 microns, giving a range of 0.20≤d2/d1≤0.67. This range includes the thickness of the additional substrate being half the thickness of the optical thickness, d2/d1=0.5. The pupil replication density of the light out-coupled by the source waveguide is based in part on a number of layers, thus 1/(m+1)=0.5 achieves 1/(m+1) aperture filling. Column 7, lines 1-6 and column 8, lines 8-17, Fig. 5).
It has been held that "A prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP §2144.05(I).
In the current instance Parsons discloses a range of 0.20≤d2/d1≤0.67 which encompasses the narrower claimed range of 1/(m+1)=0.5. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose a value of 1/(m+1)=d2/d1=0.5 within the narrower claimed range, because it has been held that "A prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP §2144.05(I). Note that, in the current instance, 1/(m+1) is an art recognized results effective variable in that the pupil replication density of the waveguide is determined by the thickness of the substrate and the thickness of the additional substrates as taught by Parsons (Parsons, column 8, lines 18-23). Thus one would have been motivated to optimize the additional substrate thickness such that 1/(m+1)=0.5 because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.”
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because doing so increases pupil replication density and, thereby, increases homogeneity of the resulting image (column 2, lines 61-65).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Marshall, US 2019/0155027 A1, Waveguide Structure, relevant to claims 1-23.
Amitai, US 2017/0052377 A1, Polarizing Optical System, relevant to claims 1-23.
Robbins et al., US 2016/0085300 A1, Waveguide Eye Tracking Employing Switchable Diffraction Gratings, relevant to claims 1-23.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER A JONES whose telephone number is (703)756-4574. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM - 5 PM.
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at (571) 272-2434. 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.
/J.A.J./JENNIFER A JONES
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
07/10/2026
Prosecution Insights