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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 is 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "’the near-to-eye refractive component" in lines 7, 14 and 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This limitation appears to correspond to the ‘near-eye refractive component in line 5 and will be interpreted as the same element for the purpose of examination.
Claim 1 recites the limitation ‘the secondary reflection surface’ in line 8. There is no antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination this limitation will be interpreted as using an indefinite article.
Claim 1 recites the limitation ‘the refractive outer refractive surface’ in lines 17-18. There is no antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This will be interpreted as ‘an outer refractive surface of the near-eye refractive component’ for the purpose of examination.
Claim 1 recites the limitation ‘the opaque surface’. There is no antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, the specification does not provide a reference character for ‘the opaque surface’, see paragraph 0075 of the USPGPub, therefore examiner is unsure how this limitation is to be interpreted.
Furthermore, regarding claim 1, the limitation ‘when the diopters of the compensation surface and the refractive outer refractive surface are combined differently, it can adapt to users with different eyesight’ cannot be a limitation further limiting this claim, since lines 5-6 already recited that the near-eye refractive component enlarges the image and in line 7-8 the same component allows external light to pass through without diopter. If the limitations of lines 5-8 are mean that the external light pass through the near eye display without being adjusted, it cannot then be adjusted in lines 17-18 by the same components. For the purpose of examination, the near-eye refractive component will be interpreted as allowing external light to pass through with or without diopter.
Claims 2-8 are rejected inasmuch as they depend from claim 1.
Examiner notes that with respect to ‘a secondary reflection surface’ in claim 2 lines 2, the limitation is already introduced in claim 1, so this instance of the secondary reflections surface should be claimed with the definite article to match the antecedent basis in claim 1.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cheng et al. (US 2019/0278087 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Cheng teaches a compact near eye display device with a large field of view angle based on total reflection (figure 5) comprising:
A total reflection prism (10A, 20A, figure 5) for totally reflecting (paragraph 0034) and conducting light emitted by an image source (MD, figure 5) for one or more times,
A near eye refractive component (30A, figure 5) for enlarging the image after one or more reflections of the light (paragraph 0038),
Wherein the near-to eye refractive component allows external light to pass through without diopter (paragraph 0049), and the secondary reflection surface (103A, figure 5) is semi reflective (paragraph 0034), so that a human eye can see external environment through the near-to eye refractive component and the total reflection prism while seeing the displayed image clearly, thus realizing the semi-transparent display effect of augmented reality (paragraph 0034);
Wherein the total reflection prism comprises a compensation surface (202A, figure 5) and the compensation surface is a curved surface (paragraph 0047), and is located on aside of the total reflection prism facing away from the near-to-eye refractive component, and the refractive surface of the near-to-eye refractive component is matched to perform refractive adjustment on the internal display light and external environmental light (paragraph 0049),
When the diopters of the compensation surface and the refractive outer refractive surface are combined differently, it can adapt to users with different eyesight (paragraph 0049),
Wherein the compensation surface extends close to the image source, thereby further reducing the projection of the opaque surface forming a smaller view blocking area, and forming a better narrow frame effect (MD, 20A, figure 5).
Regarding claim 3, Cheng teaches the image source is a beam generator (microdisplay, paragraph 0018).
Regarding claim 4, Cheng teaches the near-eye diopter adopts a positive focal length lens (30A, figure 5).
Regarding claim 5, Cheng teaches the device comprises two sets of total reflection prisms and two image sources (paragraph 0052),
The two sets of total reflection prisms and two image sources are respectively placed in front of the human eyes, project light from two different directions and splice two displayed pictures to achieve a larger field of view angle display effect (paragraph 0052).
Regarding claim 6, Cheng teaches optical path isolation is arranged between the two sets of total reflection prims (paragraph 0052, the systems separately project to each eye and are therefore isolated).
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (US 2019/0278087 A1) in view of Ofir (US 2019/0278086 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Cheng teaches a primary reflection surface (102A, figure 5) and a secondary reflection surface (103A, figure 5) a gap layer exits between he image source and the near eye refractive component and the total reflection prism (paragraph 0038), and the gap layer contains substances with a refractive index lower than that of the total reflection prism, so that light can be totally reflected and transmitted on an inner surface of the total reflection prism (paragraph 0038).
Cheng does not teach that the primary reflection surface forms an included angle of about 30 degrees with the image source, while the secondary reflection surface forms an included angle of about 30 degrees with the near eye refractive component, the image source and the near eye refractive component are placed in parallel.
Ofir teaches hat the primary reflection surface (16, figure 5) forms an included angle of about 30 degrees with the image source (4, figure 5; the angle is an acute angle so it is about 30 degrees), while the secondary reflection surface (22, figure 5) forms an included angle of about 30 degrees with the near eye refractive component (82, figure 5), the image source and the near eye refractive component are placed in parallel (see 4 and 82, figure 5).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention as made to modify the display of Cheng to use the flat waveguide structure of Ofir in order to make the display system more compact.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (US 2019/0278087 A1) in view of Zheng et al. (CN 107024769 B), Machine translation into English provided by examiner.
Regarding claim 8 Cheng does not teach the device comprises two sets of total reflection prism, and the two sets of total reflection prisms are placed in front of the human eyes, and two paths of light at different times from the same area of the same image source are spliced by two displayed pictures to achieve a larger field of view angle display effect.
Zheng teaches two sets of total reflection prisms (78, 79, figure 7), and the two sets of total reflection prisms are placed in front of the human eyes, and two paths of light at different times from the same area of the same image source are spliced by two displayed pictures to achieve a larger field of view angle display effect (paragraph 0139).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the display of Cheng to use the sequential display of Zheng in order to reduce the number of displays required and make the system more compact.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 7, Closest prior art (US 2013/0187836) teaches the utilizing one display with different areas for each channel displayed (figure 2b), however the total reflection prisms are not overlapped.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN D HOWARD whose telephone number is (571)270-5358. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5:00.
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, Minh-Toan Ton can be reached at 5712722303. 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.
/RYAN D HOWARD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882 6/06/2026
Prosecution Insights