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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/13/2024 and 04/14/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
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 1 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Elazhary et el. (US 2021/0173210) in view of Martinez et al. (US 2017/0293143).
Regarding claim 1, Elazhary discloses a head-up display device (Figures 2A, 10 and 11), comprising:
a projection module ([0073] discloses: 1148/148, projector), comprising an image light source ([0073] discloses: 1008, display) and a projection lens ([0073] discloses: 1002, projection lens and 502, DOE; [0071] discloses: 1002, projection lens, includes 1006, one or more lens elements, 1004, stop and 502, DOE), wherein the image light source is disposed to provide an image beam (Figure 10 depicts: image light from 1002, projection lens and 1008, display, which are part of 1148, projector), the projection lens is disposed on a transmission path of the image beam (Figures 10 and 11 depict: 1002, projection lens, disposed on a transmission path of the image beam, from 1008, display), and
an optical waveguide element ([0033] discloses: 203, waveguides), disposed on the transmission path of the image beam from the projection lens ([0033] discloses: 203, waveguide, receives input light from 148, projector, see Figure 10), and guiding the image beam to form a display beam ([0033] discloses: 203, waveguide, directs to eye box, see Figure 10); and
Elizhary fails to disclose a device wherein the projection lens has a lateral chromatic aberration of the projection lens; and an image light transmission module, having a lateral chromatic aberration of the image light transmission module, wherein the image light transmission module comprises and an optical lens, disposed on a transmission path of the display beam from the optical waveguide element, wherein the lateral chromatic aberration of the projection lens is a reverse chromatic aberration, and the lateral chromatic aberration of the image light transmission module is a positive chromatic aberration. Elizhary and Martinez are related because both disclose light guided devices.
Martinez teaches a device wherein the projection lens has a lateral chromatic aberration of the projection lens (Figure 1 depicts and [0019] teaches: 115, prism; [0006] teaches: prism used for compensation of lateral chromatic aberration); and
an image light transmission module ([0015] teaches: 120, curved eyepiece, including 125, lens body, 127, lightguide, 130, second lens body, 135, optical combiner, 140, input surface, 145, world facing surface and 150, eye ward facing surface), having a lateral chromatic aberration of the image light transmission module ([0019] teaches: chromatic aberrations caused by 127, lightguide), wherein the image light transmission module ([0015] teaches: 120, curved eyepiece) comprises and an optical lens ([0015] teaches: 125, first lens body and 130, second lens body), disposed on a transmission path of the display beam from the optical waveguide element (Figure 1A depicts: 120, curved eyepiece disposed on the transmission path of the display beam from 127, lightguide), wherein the lateral chromatic aberration of the projection lens is a reverse chromatic aberration ([0006] teaches: prism used for compensation of lateral chromatic aberration; this pre-compensated aberration is considered the reverse of the chromatic aberration cause by 127, lightguide), and the lateral chromatic aberration of the image light transmission module is a positive chromatic aberration ([0019] teaches: chromatic aberrations caused by 127, lightguide; considered positive chromatic aberrations because pre-compensation requires opposite-sense aberration).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Elizhary in view of Martinez and provide a device wherein the projection lens has a lateral chromatic aberration of the projection lens; and an image light transmission module, having a lateral chromatic aberration of the image light transmission module, wherein the image light transmission module comprises and an optical lens, disposed on a transmission path of the display beam from the optical waveguide element, wherein the lateral chromatic aberration of the projection lens is a reverse chromatic aberration, and the lateral chromatic aberration of the image light transmission module is a positive chromatic aberration. Doing so would allow for reverse lateral chromatic aberration to compensate for chromatic aberration of the image light transmission module, thereby reducing color separation in the display image and improving image quality.
Regarding claim 9, the modified Elazhary discloses the head-up display device according to claim 1, wherein the optical waveguide element ([0033] discloses: 203, waveguides) comprises a light entrance area and a light exit area (Figure 10 depicts: 203, waveguide, with upper area, considered the light entrance area, and a lower area, considered the light exit area), the projection module ([0073] discloses: 1148/148, projector) is arranged corresponding to the light entrance area (Figure 10 depicts: 1002, projection lens, the main body of 1148, projector, arranged corresponding to the light entrance area) and the optical lens (Martinez: [0015] teaches: 125, first lens body and 130, second lens body) is arranged corresponding to the light exit area (Martinez: Figure 1A depicts: 125, first lens body and 120, second lens body, arranged corresponding to the light exit area, i.e., directed at the eye box of the system; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 1, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Elazhary discloses the head-up display device according to claim 9, wherein the optical waveguide element ([0033] discloses: 203, waveguides) comprises a first surface, a second surface, and a lateral surface (see annotated Figure A below, which is an annotated Figure 10 of Elazhary), the lateral surface is connected between the first surface and the second surface, and the light entrance area and the light exit area are disposed on the first surface and the second surface respectively (see annotated Figure A below; Examiner notes that the opposed major surfaces of 203, waveguide have the lateral edge surface connecting the opposed surfaces defined by the entrance and exit area respectively).
PNG
media_image1.png
629
582
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A
Regarding claim 11, the modified Elazhary discloses the head-up display device according to claim 9, wherein there is no reflective element between the optical lens and the light exit area (Martinez: Figure 1A depicts: 120, curved eyepiece including 127, curved lightguide, 130, lens body, with 155, display light being output through 160, viewing region towards 170, eye box; Martinez does not disclose a separate reflective element disposed between 130, lens body and 160, light viewing region; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 1, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Elazhary et el. (US 2021/0173210) in view of Martinez et al. (US 2017/0293143), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Ikemori (US 4,206,973).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Elazhary discloses the head-up display device according to claim 1, wherein the projection lens (1002, projection lens) comprises at least two first lens elements (Figure 11A depicts: 1102, 1104, lens elements, considered the two first lens elements, see [0073]) and at least one second lens element (Figure 11A depicts: 1106, lens element, consider the second lens element).
Elazhary fails to disclose a device wherein an Abbe number of each of the at least one second lens element is less than 25. However, optimizing an Abbe number would have been within the level of ordinary skill and would be involved routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. ”In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation ”In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). [I]f the prior art does recognize that the variable affects the relevant property or result, then the variable is result-effective. In the case at hand, Ikemori in Col. 4, lines 47-63, the Abbe number is adjusted so as to contribute to under-corrected or over-corrected lateral chromatic aberrations, and established Abbe number as a variable which achieves a recognized result. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to disclose a device wherein an Abbe number of each of the at least one second lens element is less than 25 since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 3, the modified Elazhary discloses the head-up display device according to claim 2.
Elazhary fails to disclose a device wherein an average Abbe number of the at least two first lens elements is more than two times as an average Abbe number of the at least one second lens element. However, optimizing an Abbe number would have been within the level of ordinary skill and would be involved routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. ”In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation ”In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). [I]f the prior art does recognize that the variable affects the relevant property or result, then the variable is result-effective. In the case at hand, Ikemori in Col. 4, lines 47-63, the Abbe number is adjusted so as to contribute to under-corrected or over-corrected lateral chromatic aberrations, and established Abbe number as a variable which achieves a recognized result. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to disclose a device wherein an average Abbe number of the at least two first lens elements is more than two times as an average Abbe number of the at least one second lens element since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Claims 4-5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Elazhary et el. (US 2021/0173210) in view of Martinez et al. (US 2017/0293143) in view of Ikemori (US 4,206,973), as applied to claim 2 above, in view of He (WO 2023/143008, Examiner has provided a machine translation) .
Regarding claim 4, the modified Elazhary discloses the head-up display device according to claim 2.
Elazhary fails to disclose a device wherein a number of the at least one second lens element is plural, and there is at least one of the at least two first lens elements between the adjacent at least one second lens element. Elazhary and He are related because both disclose projection lenses.
He teaches a device wherein a number of the at least one second lens element is plural (Table 2 discloses: 11, first lens and 13, third lens; considered plural lens elements of the second lens), and there is at least one of the at least two first lens elements between the adjacent at least one second lens element (Table 2 discloses: 12, second lens; Examiner notes that the 12, second lens is between adjacent lens elements 11 and 13, and the lenses are grouped according to Abbe number, aberration minimization).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Elazhary in view of He and provide a device wherein a number of the at least one second lens element is plural, and there is at least one of the at least two first lens elements between the adjacent at least one second lens element. Doing so would allow for optimization of chromatic aberration and tuning of dispersion characteristics, thereby improving the overall performance and functionality of the display device.
Regarding claim 5, the modified Elazhary discloses the head-up display device according to claim 2.
Elazhary fails to disclose a device wherein the projection lens is composed of the at least two first lens elements and the at least one second lens element, a number of the at least two first lens elements is five, and a number of the at least one second lens element is two. Elazhary and He are related because both disclose projection lenses.
He teaches a device wherein the projection lens is composed of the at least two first lens elements (Table 2 discloses: 11, first lens and 13, third lens) and the at least one second lens element (Table 2 discloses: 12, second lens), a number of the at least two first lens elements is five (Table 2 discloses: 11, first lens and 13, third lens, 15, fifth lens, 21, sixth lens and 22, seventh lens; therefore the first lens element is five), and a number of the at least one second lens element is two (Table 2 discloses: 12, second lens, 14, fourth lens; therefore the second lens element is two).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Elazhary in view of He and provide a device wherein the projection lens is composed of the at least two first lens elements and the at least one second lens element, a number of the at least two first lens elements is five, and a number of the at least one second lens element is two. Doing so would allow for optimization of chromatic aberration and tuning of dispersion characteristics, thereby improving the overall performance and functionality of the display device.
Regarding claim 13, the modified Elazhary discloses the head-up display device according to claim 2.
Elazhary fails to disclose a device wherein at least one of the at least one second lens element is a positive lens. Elazhary and He are related because both disclose projection lenses.
He teaches a device wherein at least one of the at least one second lens element is a positive lens ([0019] discloses: fourth lens, has positive optical power; Examiner notes that the fourth lenses is considered the at least one second lens element).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Elazhary in view of He and provide a device wherein at least one of the at least one second lens element is a positive lens. Doing so would allow for system optimized chromatic aberration correction, thereby improving the overall projection quality of the display device.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Elazhary et el. (US 2021/0173210) in view of Martinez et al. (US 2017/0293143), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Prior et al. (US 2009/0002835).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Elazhary discloses the head-up display device according to claim 1, wherein the image beam forms an image with a plurality of image pixels (Martinez: [0016]-[0017] discloses: 105, display panel, receives 155, display light to form display image; [0020] discloses: each 155, display light has its own chef ray projected out from the given display pixel; thus, 155, display light image beam forms a display image having a plurality of image pixels) and wherein the image has the lateral chromatic aberration of the projection lens (Martinez: [0019] discloses: lateral chromatic aberration causes color component of a color to separate or offset laterally; 115, prism pre compensates 155, display light before entering 127, curved lightguide; this the image formed/carried by 155, display light after passing through the projection side pre compensations optic has later chromatic aberrations corresponding to the reverse/projection side chromatic aberrations used to offset the downstream chromatic aberration of 127, curved lightguide Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 1, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Elazhary fails to disclose a device wherein a width of the lateral chromatic aberration of the projection lens is greater than a width of one of the plurality of image pixels. Elazhary and Prior are related because both disclose projection lenses.
Prior teaches a device wherein a width of the lateral chromatic aberration of the projection lens is greater than a width of one of the plurality of image pixels ([0065] teaches: 13 pixel LCA).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Elazhary in view of Prior and provide a device wherein a width of the lateral chromatic aberration of the projection lens is greater than a width of one of the plurality of image pixels. Doing so would allow for compensation of positive chromatic aberration thereby reducing color separation and improving display image quality.
Regarding claim 7, the modified Elazhary discloses the head-up display device according to claim 6, wherein the display beam passing through the optical lens forms a display image (Martinez: Figure 1A depicts: 155, display light, guided through 127, lightguide/120 eyepiece, and emitted toward the user eye to form a display image, see [0017]), the display image has a lateral chromatic aberration of the head-up display device (Martinez: [0019] discloses: lateral chromatic aberration causes color component of a color to separate or offset laterally; 115, prism pre compensates 155, display light before entering 127, curved lightguide; [0019] teaches: chromatic aberrations caused by 127, lightguide), and the lateral chromatic aberration of the head-up display device is less than the lateral chromatic aberration of the projection lens (Martinez: [0019] discloses: 115, prism pre compensates 155, display light for lateral aberrations before entering 127, curved lightguide; thus, after the pre-compensated display light passes through the downstream lightguide/eyepiece, the remaining/net lateral chromic aberrations of the display image is reduced relative to the reverse later chromatic aberration initially introduced by the projection side pre-compensation optic; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 1, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Elazhary et el. (US 2021/0173210) in view of Martinez et al. (US 2017/0293143) in view of Prior et al. (US 2009/0002835) , as applied to claim 7 above, in view of He (WO 2023/143008).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Elazhary discloses the head-up display device according to claim 7.
Elazhary fails to disclose a device wherein the display image has a plurality of display pixels, and the width of the lateral chromatic aberration of the head-up display device is smaller than a width of one of the plurality of display pixels. Elazhary and He are related because both disclose projection lenses.
He teaches a device wherein the display image has a plurality of display pixels, and the width of the lateral chromatic aberration of the head-up display device is smaller than a width of one of the plurality of display pixels ([0231] teaches: maximum vertical color difference is 4 μm, which is less than the size of one pixel).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Elazhary in view of He and provide a device wherein the display image has a plurality of display pixels, and the width of the lateral chromatic aberration of the head-up display device is smaller than a width of one of the plurality of display pixels. Doing so would allow for the final residual lateral chromatic aberration is smaller than one display pixel, thereby improving displayed image quality.
Claims 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Elazhary et el. (US 2021/0173210) in view of Martinez et al. (US 2017/0293143), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Cheng et al. (US 2012/0081800).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Elazhary discloses the head-up display device according to claim 1.
Elazhary fails to disclose a device wherein the optical lens is a free-form surface lens. Elazhary and Cheng are related because both disclose head mounted displays.
Cheng teaches disclose a device wherein the optical lens is a free-form surface lens (Claim 1 teaches: a free-from prism-lens for use in a head-mounted display).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Elazhary in view of Cheng and provide a device wherein the optical lens is a free-form surface lens. Doing so would allow for additional off axis aberration correction, thereby improving image quality, and reducing size/weight of the system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Danziger et al. (US 2020/0249481) discloses a relevant AR display system, Yoshida et al. (US 2017/0276945) discloses a relevant display device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Sipes whose telephone number is (703)756-1372. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 4:30 -10/12-6:30 (CT).
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571) 272-2713. 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.
John Sipes
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/J.C.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights