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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/27/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1, 3-10 and 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Freeman et al.
Freeman et al. (US Pub. No. 2011/0013097 A1) discloses:
Regarding claims 1 and 10, an apparatus comprising (Figure 1, element 100): an optical engine (Figure 1, element 110) configured to generate an optical output (Figure 1, element 112) corresponding to a pixel location (Figure 1, element 126) in a display image (Figure 1, element 128); a scanning system (Figure 1, element 114) configured to project the optical output (Figure 1, element 124) to the pixel location (Figure 1, element 126) on a display surface displaying the display image (Figure 1, element 128); a controller (Figure 1, element 122) configured to: determine a minimum pixel brightness associated with the display image (i.e. corresponding intensity of the pixel; page 2, paragraph 0016, lines 16-19); determine a maximum pixel brightness greater than the minimum pixel brightness (page 2, paragraph 0020, lines 20-22); determine a modulated region of the display image based on the maximum pixel brightness (page 2, paragraph 0018, lines 15-17); determine the pixel location is within the modulated region (i.e. corresponding pixel in the image; page 2, paragraph 0016, line 19); and adjust an optical output brightness of the optical output such that a pixel brightness at the pixel location is at the maximum pixel brightness (page 5, paragraph 0030, lines 25-27).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, the minimum pixel brightness is based on a center pixel brightness corresponding to a center pixel location proximate a center of the display image (page 2, paragraph 0019, lines 40-43).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, project the optical output associated with a plurality of pixel locations in a raster pattern (page 2, paragraph 0016, lines 16-18).
Regarding claim 5, the modulated region is determined based on a distance from a center line of the display image (page 2, paragraph 0019, lines 39-43).
Regarding claim 6, the modulated region is defined by a maximum lateral distance from the vertical center line of the display image (page 2, paragraph 0016, lines 13-19).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, the maximum lateral distance corresponds to a point at which a corresponding pixel brightness exceeds the maximum pixel brightness (page 2, paragraph 0020, lines 10-13).
Regarding claims 8 and 16, the pixel brightness is measured in lux (page 4, paragraph 0027, lines 13-15).
Regarding claims 9 and 17, the pixel brightness is based on an optical output dwell time (page 3, paragraph 0024, lines 24-25).
Regarding claim 14, determining a maximum lateral distance from a vertical center line of the display image corresponding to a point at which a corresponding pixel brightness exceeds the maximum pixel brightness (page 2, paragraph 0020, lines 10-13); and defining the modulated region based on the maximum lateral distance from the vertical center line of the display image (page 2, paragraph 0016, lines 13-19).
Regarding claim 18, a head-worn wearable display (said technology is used in a device designed to response of the human eye; page 2, paragraph 0019, lines 17-19 and 23-26) comprising: a display surface (i.e. projection surface; Figure 1, element 128); and a laser beam scanning projection system (Figure 1, element 100) configured to project a display image on the display surface (Figure 1, element 128), the laser beam projection system (Figure 1, element 100) comprising: an optical engine (Figure 1, element 110) configured to generate an optical output (Figure 1, element 112) corresponding to a pixel location (Figure 1, element 126) on the display surface (Figure 1, element 128); a scanning system (Figure 1, element 114) configured to project the optical output (Figure 1, element 124) to the pixel location (Figure 1, element 126) on a display surface displaying the display image (Figure 1, element 128); a controller (Figure 1, element 122) configured to: determine a minimum pixel brightness associated with the display image (i.e. corresponding intensity of the pixel; page 2, paragraph 0016, lines 16-19); determine a maximum pixel brightness greater than the minimum pixel brightness (page 2, paragraph 0020, lines 20-22); determine a modulated region of the display image based on the maximum pixel brightness (page 2, paragraph 0018, lines 15-17); determine the pixel location is within the modulated region (i.e. corresponding pixel in the image; page 2, paragraph 0016, line 19); and adjust an optical output brightness of the optical output such that a pixel brightness at the pixel location is at the maximum pixel brightness (page 5, paragraph 0030, lines 25-27).
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.
Claims 2, 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freeman et al.
Freeman et al. (US Pub. No. 2011/0013097 A1) teaches the salient features of the present invention as explained above except the maximum pixel brightness is 120% of the minimum pixel brightness.
Freeman et al. (US Pub. No. 2011/0013097 A1) discloses brightness uniformity (page 5, paragraph 0030, lines 25-27). Freeman et al. do not explicitly state the maximum pixel brightness is 120% of the minimum pixel brightness. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to the maximum pixel brightness is 120% of the minimum pixel brightness the purpose of controlling the overall brightness for the scanned beam display (Freeman et al., page 4, paragraph 0025, lines 2-3).
The applicant should note that it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Furthermore, the applicant should note that it has been held that where the general working conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freeman et al. in view of Masuda et al.
Freeman et al. (US Pub. No. 2011/0013097 A1) teaches the salient features of the present invention as explained above except the display surface is transparent.
Masuda et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0072546 A1) discloses the display surface (Figure 1, element 50) is transparent (page 2, paragraph 0022, lines 5-6).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a transparent display surface as shown by Masuda et al. in combination with Freeman et al.’s invention for the purpose of allowing the virtual image be seen by the human eye (Masuda et al., page 2, paragraph 0022, lines 24-25).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Price et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0280158 A1) discloses techniques for increasing a laser light's spectral linewidth while simultaneously improving how a laser is controlled by causing the laser to operate at higher power levels. An illumination energy value for a pixel and an illumination time period for the pixel are both determined. A number of laser pulses that are to be emitted by the laser assembly to illuminate the pixel during the illumination time period is also determined. This number is based on the illumination energy value for the pixel. Then, within the illumination time period and in accordance with the determined number of laser pulses, the pixel is illuminated by causing the laser assembly to emit one or more laser pulses that cause the pixel to be illuminated at the illumination energy value.
Iwata (US Pub. No. 2020/0041888 A1) teaches a projection apparatus comprising: a first laser beam source configured to output a visible laser beam; a second laser beam source configured to output an invisible laser beam; a scan unit configured to project an image by scanning a projection surface using the visible laser beam output from the first laser beam source and the invisible laser beam output from the second laser beam source; and a control unit configured to control a timing at which the first laser beam source outputs the visible laser beam and a timing at which the second laser beam source outputs the invisible laser beam so that, in a period corresponding to a target pixel in the image, the visible laser beam is output in a first period and the invisible laser beam is output in a second period different from the first period.
Tardif et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0295331 A1) shows a scanning display device including a MEMS scanner, a controller, light source drivers, light sources and an image processor. The controller controls rotation of MEMS mirror(s) of the MEMS scanner. Each light source driver selectively drives a respective one of the light sources to thereby produce a respective light beam that is directed towards and incident on a MEMS mirror of the MES scanner. The image processor causes two of the light source drivers to drive two of the light sources to thereby produce two light beams, when a first portion of an image is being raster scanned by the MEMS scanner. The image processor causes only one of the light source drivers to drive only one of the light sources to thereby produce only one light beam, when a second portion of the image is being raster scanned by the MEMS scanner. Related methods and systems are also disclosed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAGDA CRUZ whose telephone number is (571)272-2114. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:30 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, Toan Ton can be reached at 571-272-2303. 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.
/MAGDA CRUZ/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2882
07/24/2026
Prosecution Insights