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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/15/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “300” (fig. 3); “526a” and “526b” (fig. 5B). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6, 11, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0314802 to Smeeton et al. (hereafter Smeeton), in view of WO 2017/029624 to Gupta et al. (hereafter Gupta).
Regarding claim 1, Smeeton discloses a head-up display for a vehicle (see at least the abstract), the head-up display comprising: a spatial light modulator arranged to form a spatially modulated wavefront (see at least paragraph [0080]); and an optical sub-system arranged to direct the spatially modulated wavefront to an eye-box, wherein the optical sub-system comprises an optical component having an external surface arranged to output light of an image to the eye-box (see at least Fig. 4 and paragraphs [0088]-[0090]).
Smeeton does not specifically disclose that at least part of the external surface of the optical component comprises a superhydrophobic surface structure.
However, Gupta teaches an optical device comprising a superhydrophobic surface structure (see at least the abstract and Fig. 2(b)).
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 head-up display of Smeeton to include the teachings of Gupta so that at least part of the external surface of the optical component comprises a superhydrophobic surface structure for the purpose of avoiding degraded performance due to liquid being retained on the surface (see at least paragraph [0002] of Gupta).
Regarding claim 2, Smeeton as modified by Gupta discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Gupta also teaches that the superhydrophobic surface structure comprises a hierarchical micro-nanostructure (see at least Fig. 2(b)).
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 head-up display of Smeeton as modified by Gupta to include the further teachings of Gupta so that the superhydrophobic surface structure comprises a hierarchical micro-nanostructure for the purpose of using a known superhydrophobic surface structure in order to obtain predictable results such as a higher contact angle (see at least paragraphs [0005] and [0010] of Gupta).
Regarding claim 3, Smeeton as modified by Gupta discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Gupta also teaches that the superhydrophobic surface structure comprises a layer on the external surface of the optical component, optionally wherein the layer is separate from, or integrally formed with, the optical component (see at least paragraph [0042]).
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 head-up display of Smeeton as modified by Gupta to include the further teachings of Gupta so that the superhydrophobic surface structure comprises a layer on the external surface of the optical component, optionally wherein the layer is separate from, or integrally formed with, the optical component for the purpose of using a known technique for forming the superhydrophobic surface structure in order to obtain predictable results such as durability and manufacturability.
Regarding claim 4, Smeeton as modified by Gupta discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Smeeton also discloses that the optical component comprises a pupil expander arranged to output the spatially modulated wavefront and at least one replica thereof (see at least Fig. 4 and paragraphs [0025]-[0026]).
Regarding claim 5, Smeeton as modified by Gupta discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Smeeton also discloses that the optical component comprises a waveguide (see at least Fig. 4 and paragraph [0026]).
Regarding claim 6, Smeeton as modified by Gupta discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Smeeton also discloses that the optical component comprises a waveguide and a reflection suppression device arranged over an output surface of the waveguide, and wherein the external surface comprises an outer surface of the reflection suppression device (see at least paragraphs [0027]-[0028], light control layer for suppressing reflections of sunlight glare).
Regarding claim 11, Smeeton as modified by Gupta discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Smeeton also discloses that the spatial light modulator is arranged to display a hologram of an image, and wherein the spatially modulated light comprises a holographic wavefront (see at least paragraph [0013]).
Regarding claim 14, Smeeton discloses an optical component comprising: an external surface arranged to output light of an image to an eye-box, wherein the optical component is configured for use in an optical sub-system arranged to direct a spatially modulated wavefront generated by a spatial light modulator to the eye-box (see at least Fig. 4 and paragraphs [0088]-[0090]).
Smeeton does not specifically disclose that at least part of the external surface of the optical component comprises a superhydrophobic surface structure.
However, Gupta teaches an optical device comprising a superhydrophobic surface structure (see at least the abstract and Fig. 2(b)).
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 component of Smeeton to include the teachings of Gupta so that at least part of the external surface of the optical component comprises a superhydrophobic surface structure for the purpose of avoiding degraded performance due to liquid being retained on the surface (see at least paragraph [0002] of Gupta).
Regarding claim 15, Smeeton as modified by Gupta discloses all of the limitations of claim 14.
Smeeton also discloses a waveguide having a reflection suppression device arranged adjacent an output surface thereof, wherein the reflection suppression device comprises the external surface of the optical component (see at least Fig. 4 and paragraphs [0026]-[0028], the waveguide includes a light control layer for suppressing reflections of sunlight glare).
Regarding claim 16, Smeeton as modified by Gupta discloses all of the limitations of claim 14.
Smeeton as modified by Gupta does not specifically disclose at least one of a cover or an insert for the optical component, wherein the cover or insert comprises a superhydrophobic surface structure layer having a complementary configuration to the external surface of the optical component.
However, Official Notice is taken that separate covers or inserts are old and well-known in the art for providing protection to optical components. 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 component of Smeeton as modified by Gupta so that the optical component further comprises at least one of a cover or an insert for the optical component, wherein the cover or insert comprises a superhydrophobic surface structure layer having a complementary configuration to the external surface of the optical component for the purpose of protecting the optical component since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0314802 to Smeeton et al. (hereafter Smeeton), in view of WO 2017/029624 to Gupta et al. (hereafter Gupta) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of US 2014/0140091 to Vasylyev (hereafter Vasylyev).
Regarding claim 7, Smeeton as modified by Gupta discloses all of the limitations of claim 6.
Smeeton as modified by Gupta does not specifically disclose a light turning layer arranged between the output surface of the waveguide and an inner surface of the reflection suppression device.
However, Vasylyev teaches a waveguide illumination system (see at least the abstract) comprising a light turning layer arranged on the output surface of a waveguide (see at least Figs. 5 and 6 and paragraph [0133]).
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 head-up display of Smeeton as modified by Gupta to include the teachings of Vasylyev so that the display further comprises a light turning layer arranged between the output surface of the waveguide and an inner surface of the reflection suppression device for the purpose of extracting and redirecting light (see at least paragraph [0133] of Vasylyev).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0314802 to Smeeton et al. (hereafter Smeeton), in view of WO 2017/029624 to Gupta et al. (hereafter Gupta) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of US 11,262,325 to In’t Zandt et al. (hereafter Zandt).
Regarding claim 8, Smeeton as modified by Gupta discloses all of the limitations of claim 2.
Smeeton as modified by Gupta does not specifically disclose a drainage channel positioned adjacent to at least one edge of the optical component, wherein the drainage channel is arranged to collect liquid received from the hierarchical micro-nanostructure.
However, Zandt teaches a sensor semiconductor device (see at least the abstract) comprising a superhydrophobic surface structure (see at least Col. 2, lines 22-31) and a drainage channel positioned adjacent to at least one edge of the component (see at least Col. 4, lines 25-36).
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 head-up display of Smeeton as modified by Gupta to include the teachings of Zandt so that the display further comprises a drainage channel positioned adjacent to at least one edge of the optical component, wherein the drainage channel is arranged to collect liquid received from the hierarchical micro-nanostructure for the purpose of collecting and draining liquid that is repelled by the superhydrophobic surface in order to protect the other components of the display from the liquid (see at least Col. 4, lines 25-36 of Zandt).
Regarding claim 9, Smeeton as modified by Gupta and Zandt discloses all of the limitations of claim 8.
The examiner notes that the limitation “the liquid received from the hierarchical micro-nanostructure includes water comprising contaminants” is considered an intended use of the claimed invention and is therefore given limited patentable weight.
Gupta also teaches that the liquid received from the hierarchical micro-nanostructure includes water (see at least paragraph [0014]).
Zandt also teaches that the liquid received from the hierarchical micro-nanostructure includes water (see at least Col. 4, lines 25-36).
Therefore, the display of Smeeton as modified by Gupta and Zandt is understood to also be capable of handling water comprising contaminants.
Regarding claim 10, Smeeton as modified by Gupta and Zandt discloses all of the limitations of claim 8.
Gupta also teaches that the optical component is arranged to be tilted from a horizontal plane, wherein, in use, liquid droplets formed on the external surface of the optical component are conveyed by gravity off of the surface (see at least paragraph [0014]).
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 head-up display of Smeeton as modified by Gupta and Zandt to include the further teachings of Gupta so that the optical component is arranged to be tilted from a horizontal plane, wherein, in use, the drainage channel is positioned adjacent at least one lowest edge of the tilted optical component such that liquid droplets formed on the external surface of the optical component are conveyed by gravity to the drainage channel for the purpose of removing the liquid droplets from the surface of the device.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0314802 to Smeeton et al. (hereafter Smeeton), in view of WO 2017/029624 to Gupta et al. (hereafter Gupta) as applied to claims 1 and/or 11 above, and further in view of US 2018/0299829 to Haussler (hereafter Haussler).
Regarding claim 12, Smeeton as modified by Gupta discloses all of the limitations of claim 11.
Smeeton as modified by Gupta does not specifically disclose that the hologram of the image displayed on the spatial light modulator is arranged to pre-compensate for optical effects of the superhydrophobic surface structure.
However, Haussler teaches a light modulation device (see at least the abstract) wherein a hologram of an image displayed on a spatial light modulator is arranged to pre-compensate for optical effects (scattering effects) of an optical element (see at least paragraphs [0031] and [0036]).
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 head-up display of Smeeton as modified by Gupta to include the teachings of Haussler so that the hologram of the image displayed on the spatial light modulator is arranged to pre-compensate for optical effects of the superhydrophobic surface structure for the purpose of viewing a correct holographic reconstruction (see at least paragraph [0031] of Haussler).
Regarding claim 13, Smeeton as modified by Gupta discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Smeeton as modified by Gupta does not specifically disclose a hologram engine arranged to calculate a hologram of an image, wherein the hologram engine is arranged to apply a pre-compensation to the hologram based on optical effects of the superhydrophobic surface structure so that a corrected holographic wavefront is output by the external surface of the optical component.
However, Haussler teaches a light modulation device (see at least the abstract) wherein a hologram is calculated so to pre-compensate for optical effects (scattering effects) of an optical element (see at least paragraphs [0031] and [0036]).
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 head-up display of Smeeton as modified by Gupta to include the teachings of Haussler so that the display further comprises a hologram engine arranged to calculate a hologram of an image, wherein the hologram engine is arranged to apply a pre-compensation to the hologram based on optical effects of the superhydrophobic surface structure so that a corrected holographic wavefront is output by the external surface of the optical component for the purpose of viewing a correct holographic reconstruction (see at least paragraph [0031] of Haussler).
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0314802 to Smeeton et al. (hereafter Smeeton), in view of WO 2017/029624 to Gupta et al. (hereafter Gupta) and US 2018/0299829 to Haussler (hereafter Haussler).
Regarding claim 17, Smeeton discloses a method of displaying an image, the method comprising: displaying a hologram of the image on a display device (see at least paragraphs [0009]-[0013]); illuminating the display device with light (see at least paragraph [0075], light source illuminates the SLM); spatially modulating the light in accordance with the hologram, wherein the spatially modulated light is output by the display device as a holographic wavefront (see at least paragraphs [0009]-[0013] and [0075]); receiving the holographic wavefront by an optical component having an external surface; and outputting, by the external surface of the optical component, the holographic wavefront to an eye-box (see at least Fig. 4 and paragraphs [0090]-[0092]).
Smeeton does not specifically disclose that the external surface comprises a superhydrophobic surface structure and that the hologram of the image is arranged to pre-compensate for optical effects of the superhydrophobic surface structure.
However, Gupta teaches an optical device comprising a superhydrophobic surface structure (see at least the abstract and Fig. 2(b)).
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 method of Smeeton to include the teachings of Gupta so that the external surface comprises a superhydrophobic surface structure for the purpose of avoiding degraded performance due to liquid being retained on the surface (see at least paragraph [0002] of Gupta).
Smeeton as modified by Gupta does not specifically disclose that the hologram of the image is arranged to pre-compensate for optical effects of the superhydrophobic surface structure.
However, Haussler teaches a light modulation device (see at least the abstract) wherein a hologram of an image displayed on a spatial light modulator is arranged to pre-compensate for optical effects (scattering effects) of an optical element (see at least paragraphs [0031] and [0036]).
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 method of Smeeton as modified by Gupta to include the teachings of Haussler so that the hologram of the image is arranged to pre-compensate for optical effects of the superhydrophobic surface structure for the purpose of viewing a correct holographic reconstruction (see at least paragraph [0031] of Haussler).
Regarding claim 18, Smeeton as modified by Gupta and Haussler discloses all of the limitations of claim 17.
Smeeton also discloses receiving and replicating the holographic wavefront output by the display device (see at least Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 19, Smeeton as modified by Gupta and Haussler discloses all of the limitations of claim 17.
Haussler also teaches determining a hologram of an image; and applying pre-compensation to the determined hologram to form the hologram of the image for display by the display device, wherein the pre-compensation is arranged to modify the hologram so that the holographic wavefront output by the external surface of the optical component corrects for the optical effects of the surface structure (seat at least paragraphs [0031] and [0036]).
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 method of Smeeton as modified by Gupta and Haussler to include the further teachings of Haussler so that the method further comprises determining a hologram of an image; and applying pre-compensation to the determined hologram to form the hologram of the image for display by the display device, wherein the pre-compensation is arranged to modify the hologram so that the holographic wavefront output by the external surface of the optical component corrects for the optical effects of the superhydrophobic surface structure for the purpose of viewing a correct holographic reconstruction (see at least paragraph [0031] of Haussler).
Regarding claim 20, Smeeton as modified by Gupta and Haussler discloses all of the limitations of claim 17.
Haussler also teaches that applying pre-compensation comprises applying pre-compensation data (see at least paragraph [0031], where the scattering effect of the optical element is included in the calculation of the hologram).
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 method of Smeeton as modified by Gupta and Haussler to include the further teachings of Haussler so that applying pre-compensation comprises applying pre-compensation data for the purpose of viewing a correct holographic reconstruction (see at least paragraph [0031] of Haussler).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2017/0173594 to Baldauf et al. discloses a hierarchical surface structure that resembles the surface structure of the super-hydrophobic lotus leaf (see at least Fig. 3 and paragraph [0025]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM W BOOHER whose telephone number is (571)270-0573. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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.
/A.W.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/Derek S. Chapel/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights