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 § 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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1–10 and 15–17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0018963 to Osterhout.
Regarding Claim 1, Osterhout discloses (where the whole document appears relevant) an augmented reality headset 102, comprising: a headset frame wearable by a user (illustrated in Fig. 1, including rims/arms/temples); a light guide 302 disposed in or on the headset frame and configured to direct projector light (from image production module 202) to an eye of the user over at least a portion of a field of view of the eye (where waveguide 302 illustrated in Fig. 3 is a detailed image of module 204 from Fig. 2, paragraph [0023]); a cover glass 404 disposed in or on the headset frame such that the light guide 302 is disposed between the cover glass and the eye of the user when the headset frame is worn by the user (Fig. 4; where Osterhout does not explicitly disclose that the outer protective layer 404 is formed of glass, instead generally teaching “e.g. polycarbonate, protective plate, etc.” in paragraph [0025], but selecting known protective glass as the cover glass would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, yielding predictable results, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim feature), the field of view of the eye extending through at least a portion of the cover glass (Figs. 3 and 4); and a dimmable filter 408 disposed on the cover glass (paragraph [0028], “an electrochromic layer 408 that may be controlled by a processor . . . to quickly reduce or increase the amount of scene light reaching the waveguide 302”), the field of view of the eye extending through at least a portion of the dimmable filter (Figs. 3 and 4 and paragraph [0028]).
Regarding Claim 2, Osterhout would have rendered obvious wherein the dimmable filter is disposed between the cover glass and the light guide (Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 3, Osterhout would have rendered obvious wherein when the headset frame is worn by the user: a ray of environmental light in the field of view of the eye passes sequentially from an environment surrounding the user, through the cover glass, then through the dimmable filter, then through the light guide, to the eye; and a ray of the projector light in the field of view of the eye passes from the light guide to the eye without passing through the dimmable filter or the cover glass (Figs. 3 and 4).
Regarding Claim 4, Osterhout would have rendered obvious wherein the dimmable filter is disposed directly adjacent to a light-guiding surface of the light guide without any intervening optical elements disposed between the dimmable filter and the light-guiding surface of the light guide (Fig. 4; paragraphs [0028] and [0032]).
Regarding Claim 5, Osterhout would have rendered obvious wherein the cover glass and the dimmable filter are in contact over a surface area corresponding to the field of view of the eye (Fig. 4; paragraph [0028], “the electrochromic layer 408 is applied directly to the outer protective layer 404”).
Regarding Claim 6, Osterhout would have rendered obvious wherein the dimmable filter is in contact with a light-guiding surface of the light guide (Fig. 4; paragraphs [0028] and [0032]).
Regarding Claim 7, Osterhout would have rendered obvious wherein the dimmable filter is laminated to a surface of the cover glass using an optically clear adhesive (Fig. 4; paragraphs [0028] and [0032], where dimmable filter may be attached to an intermediate layer, not explicitly described, but selecting an optically clear adhesive to adhere two optical layers together would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, yielding predictable results, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features).
Regarding Claim 8, Osterhout would have rendered obvious wherein the light guide, the dimmable filter, and the cover glass comprise parallel layers of a layered structure (e.g., Fig. 4; also where selecting the shape would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, taking into account desired optical transmission and correction characteristics, yielding predictable results, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results).
Regarding Claim 9, Osterhout would have rendered obvious wherein the light guide, the dimmable filter, and the cover glass have corresponding compound curvatures (e.g., Fig. 4; also where selecting the shape would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, taking into account desired optical transmission and correction characteristics, yielding predictable results, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results).
Regarding Claim 10, Osterhout would have rendered obvious wherein the cover glass is substantially rigid and mechanically supports the dimmable filter (Fig. 4; paragraphs [0028] and [0032]).
Regarding Claim 15, Osterhout would have rendered obvious (where the whole document appears relevant) a method for assembling an augmented reality headset 102, the method comprising: disposing a dimmable filter 408 on a cover glass 404 (paragraph [0028], “an electrochromic layer 408 that may be controlled by a processor . . . to quickly reduce or increase the amount of scene light reaching the waveguide 302”; Fig. 4; where Osterhout does not explicitly disclose that the outer protective layer 404 is formed of glass, instead generally teaching “e.g. polycarbonate, protective plate, etc.” in paragraph [0025], but selecting known protective glass as the cover glass would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, yielding predictable results, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim feature); attaching a light guide 302 to the dimmable filter and the cover glass such that the dimmable filter is located between the cover glass and the light guide (Fig. 4; paragraphs [0028]–[0032]); and attaching the light guide, the dimmable filter, and the cover glass to a wearable headset frame (illustrated in Fig. 1, including rims/arms/temples), such that when the headset frame is worn by a user: the light guide is configured to provide projector light (from image production module 202) to an eye of the user over at least a portion of a field of view of the eye (Figs. 3 and 4); the light guide is disposed between the cover glass and the eye of the user (Fig. 4); and the field of view of the eye extends through at least a portion of the cover glass and at least a portion of the dimmable filter (Figs. 3 and 4).
Regarding Claim 16, Osterhout would have rendered obvious wherein disposing the dimmable filter on the cover glass comprises laminating the dimmable filter to a surface of the cover glass using an optically clear adhesive (Fig. 4; paragraphs [0028] and [0032], where dimmable filter may be attached to an intermediate layer, not explicitly described, but selecting an optically clear adhesive to adhere two optical layers together would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, yielding predictable results, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features).
Regarding Claim 17, Osterhout would have rendered obvious forming a layered structure from the light guide, the dimmable filter, and the cover glass (Fig. 4).
Claims 11–14 and 18–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osterhout in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0118979 to Mathur et al.
Regarding Claim 11, Osterhout does not explicitly disclose wherein: the light guide is a first light guide; the projector light is first projector light and has a first spectral profile; the augmented reality headset further includes a second light guide; the first light guide is disposed between the second light guide and the dimmable filter; the field of view of the eye of the user extends through at least part of the second light guide when the headset frame is worn by the user; the second light guide is configured to provide second projector light to the eye of the user over at least the portion of the field of view of the eye; and the second projector light has a second spectral profile that differs from the first spectral profile.
Mathur discloses an augmented reality headset (similar to Osterhout), and Mathur teaches that “eyepieces 302 may comprise a plurality of waveguides corresponding to different colors and/or different depth planes,” which would provide further detail and control to the display of the AR headset (paragraph [0135]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device of Osterhout to include a plurality of waveguides corresponding to different colors, as suggested by Mathur, in order to provide a more detailed and enhanced display of the AR headset, and as a suitable configuration (e.g., MPEP §§ 2144.06–07); so modified, the combination would include wherein: the light guide is a first light guide; the projector light is first projector light and has a first spectral profile; the augmented reality headset further includes a second light guide; the first light guide is disposed between the second light guide and the dimmable filter; the field of view of the eye of the user extends through at least part of the second light guide when the headset frame is worn by the user; the second light guide is configured to provide second projector light to the eye of the user over at least the portion of the field of view of the eye; and the second projector light has a second spectral profile that differs from the first spectral profile.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Osterhout and Mathur would have rendered obvious wherein: the dimmable filter includes a plurality of filter regions that have respective controllable transparencies (e.g., Figs. 2A–D of Mathur, dynamic dimmer 203; paragraphs [0125]–[0131], useful to selectively dim portions of exterior view, in part so emphasize a virtual image displayed in that area); and the augmented reality headset further comprises a controller configured to control the transparencies of the plurality of the filter regions, the transparencies being controlled independent of one another (Figs. 2A–D of Mathur, while not explicitly teaching “a controller,” the regions are independently controlled, reasonably suggesting at least a generic “controller” configured to achieve the desired controlling).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Osterhout and Mathur would have rendered obvious a light projector (e.g., 202 of Osterhout; 214 of Mathur) configured to provide the projector light, the projector light representing an image, the controller being further configured to control the transparencies of the plurality of filter regions based at least in part on the image (paragraph [0130] of Mathur; Fig. 2C, “dimmed area 236 is determined based on virtual image light 222”).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Osterhout and Mathur would have rendered obvious wherein: the image includes an object; and the controller is further configured to increase a contrast of the object by decreasing the transparency of the dimmable filter in at least one filter region corresponding to a location of the object in the image (paragraph [0130] of Mathur; Fig. 2C, “dimmed area 236 is determined based on virtual image light 222”).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Osterhout and Mathur, when those teachings are combined as discussed above, would have rendered obvious an augmented reality headset (102 of Osterhout), comprising: a headset frame wearable by a user (illustrated in Fig. 1 of Osterhout, including rims/arms/temples); a light projector (202 of Osterhout) disposed in or on the headset frame configured to provide projector light that represents an image (Figs. 2 and 3 of Osterhout); a light guide (302 of Osterhout) disposed in or on the headset frame and configured to direct the projector light to an eye of the user over at least a portion of a field of view of the eye (where waveguide 302 illustrated in Fig. 3 of Osterhout is a detailed image of module 204 from Fig. 2, paragraph [0023]); a cover glass (404 of Osterhout, Fig. 4; where Osterhout does not explicitly disclose that the outer protective layer 404 is formed of glass, instead generally teaching “e.g. polycarbonate, protective plate, etc.” in paragraph [0025], but selecting known protective glass as the cover glass would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, yielding predictable results, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim feature) disposed in or on the headset frame such that the light guide is disposed between the cover glass and the eye of the user when the headset frame is worn by the user (Fig. 4 of Osterhout), the field of view of the eye extending through at least a portion of the cover glass (Figs. 3 and 4 of Osterhout; paragraph [0028]); a dimmable filter (e.g., 408 of Osterhout, paragraph [0028], “an electrochromic layer 408 that may be controlled by a processor . . . to quickly reduce or increase the amount of scene light reaching the waveguide 302”; modified according to Mathur to be dynamically controlled as illustrated in Figs. 2A–D of Mathur, dynamic dimmer 203) laminated to a surface of the cover glass between the cover glass and the light guide (Fig. 4; paragraphs [0028] and [0032] of Osterhout), the field of view of the eye extending through at least a portion of the dimmable filter (Figs. 3 and 4 of Osterhout; Figs. 2A–D of Mathur), the light guide being disposed between the dimmable filter and the eye of the user when the headset frame is worn by the user (Fig. 4 of Osterhout; Figs. 2A–D of Mathur), the dimmable filter including a plurality of filter regions that have respective controllable transparencies (e.g., Figs. 2A–D of Mathur, dynamic dimmer 203; paragraphs [0125]–[0131], useful to selectively dim portions of exterior view, in part so emphasize a virtual image displayed in that area); and a controller configured to control the transparencies of the plurality of the filter regions based at least in part on the image (Figs. 2A–D of Mathur, while not explicitly teaching “a controller,” the regions are independently controlled, reasonably suggesting at least a generic “controller” configured to achieve the desired controlling).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Osterhout and Mathur would have rendered obvious wherein: the image includes an object; and the controller is further configured to increase a contrast of the object by decreasing the transparency of the dimmable filter in at least one filter region corresponding to a location of the object in the image (paragraph [0130] of Mathur; Fig. 2C, “dimmed area 236 is determined based on virtual image light 222”).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Osterhout and Mathur would have rendered obvious wherein: the light guide, the dimmable filter, and the cover glass comprise parallel layers of a layered structure; and the light guide, the dimmable filter, and the cover glass have corresponding compound curvatures (e.g., Fig. 4 of Osterhout; also where selecting the shape would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, taking into account desired optical transmission and correction characteristics, yielding predictable results, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN CROCKETT whose telephone number is (571)270-3183. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am to 5pm.
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, Michael Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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 CROCKETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights