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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 37-55 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,189,136 in view of Sulai (US 2021/0080763 A1). US Patent 12,189,136 discloses an identical wearable display system comprising an eyepiece stack and an angularly selective film, except a liquid crystal layer having variable optical properties arranged between the pair of linear polarizers. The prior art of Sulai discloses a liquid crystal layer having variable optical properties arranged between a pair of linear polarizers in an angularly selective film (Sulai, Figure 11K). Further, the instant application is broader than the patent 12,189,136.
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.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US Publication No.: US 2019/0086672 A1, “Kim”) in view of Lee et al (US Publication No.: US 2019/0227321 A1, “Lee”) and Sulai et al (US Publication No.: US 2021/0080763 A1, “Sulai”).
Regarding Claim 1, Kim discloses a wearable display system (Figure 1), comprising:
An eyepiece stack having a world side and user side opposite the world side (Figure 2A, user side is close to element 200, world side is close to element 100), wherein
During use a user positioned on the user side views displayed images delivered by the wearable display system via the eyepiece stack which augment the user’s field of view of the user’s environment (Paragraph 0039 discloses an image realized for augmented reality); and
An angularly selective film arranged on the world side of the eyepiece stack, the angularly selective film comprising a pair of linear polarizers (Figure 2A, angularly selective film comprising linear polarizers 400 and 600).
Kim fails to disclose that for unpolarized light in a wavelength range from 420nm to 680nm, the angularly selective film has a transmission efficiency of 40% or more at angles of incidence less than 35° and has a transmission efficiency of 1% or less for at least one angle of incidence greater than 35°.
However, Lee discloses a similar system where for unpolarized light in a wavelength range from 420nm to 680nm, the angularly selective film has a transmission efficiency of 40% or more at angles of incidence less than 35° and has a transmission efficiency of 1% or less for at least one angle of incidence greater than 35° (Lee, Paragraph 0107 and Figure 19 discloses a high transmission efficiency at lower angles and a low transmission efficiency at higher angles).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the angularly selective film as disclosed by Kim to have a particular transmission efficiency as disclosed by Lee. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of reducing artifacts caused by external light with large incident angles (Lee, Paragraph 0107).
Kim also fails to disclose that the angularly selective film comprises a liquid crystal layer having variable optical properties arranged between the linear polarizers.
However, Sulai discloses a similar system where the angularly selective film comprises a liquid crystal layer having variable optical properties arranged between the linear polarizers (Sulai, Figure 11, linear polarizers 1127, liquid crystal layer 1128; Paragraph 0190).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the angularly selective film as disclosed by Kim to have a liquid crystal layer as disclosed by Sulai. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of blocking transmission of ambient light (Sulai, Paragraph 0190).
Regarding Claim 38, Kim in view of Lee and Sulai discloses the wearable display system of claim 37.
Kim fails to disclose that for unpolarized light in a wavelength range from 420nm to 680nm, the angularly selective film has a transmission efficiency greater than 45% at angles of incidence between -32° and +32°.
However, Lee discloses a similar system where for unpolarized light in a wavelength range from 420nm to 680nm, the angularly selective film has a transmission efficiency greater than 45% at angles of incidence between -32° and +32° (Lee, Paragraph 0107 and Figure 19 discloses a high transmission efficiency at lower angles within the claimed range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the angularly selective film as disclosed by Kim to have a particular transmission efficiency as disclosed by Lee. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of reducing artifacts caused by external light with large incident angles (Lee, Paragraph 0107).
Regarding Claim 39, Kim in view of Lee and Sulai discloses the wearable display system of claim 37, wherein pass axes of the two linear polarizers are crossed (Kim, Paragraph 0068).
Regarding Claim 40, Kim in view of Lee and Sulai discloses the wearable display system of claim 37, wherein the polarization adjusting film rotates a polarization state of light transmitted by a first linear polarizer of the pair of linear polarizers on the world side of the polarization adjusting film (Kim, Paragraph 0058).
Regarding Claim 41, Kim in view of Lee and Sulai discloses the wearable display system of claim 40, wherein an amount of rotation of the polarization state varies depending on an angle of incident of light transmitted by the first linear polarizer of the pair of linear polarizers (Kim, Paragraph 0074).
Regarding Claim 42, Kim in view of Lee and Sulai discloses the wearable display system of claim 41.
Kim fails to explicitly disclose that the light transmitted having angles of incidence of 35° or more is rotated less than the light transmitted having angles of incident less than 35°. However, Kim discloses a general environment of light transmitted having large angles of incidence is rotated less than the light transmitted having small angles of incidence (Kim, Paragraph 0074). When a limitation of a claim is a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which when modified achieves a recognized result, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges for the variable by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05). In the instant claim recitation, the limitation regarding the relationship of the incident angles and light rotation is the result-effective variable, and when these values are optimized to the appropriate amount within the specified parameters of a given display system, the recognized results of optimizing light transmittance within a virtual reality display system are realized. While Kim does not directly disclose that the light transmitted having angles of incidence of 35° or more is rotated less than the light transmitted having angles of incident less than 35°, Kim does disclose the general conditions recited in the instant claim, as noted above. In light of the disclosure of Kim, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to discover the limitation by routine experimentation that the light transmitted having angles of incidence of 35° or more is rotated less than the light transmitted having angles of incident less than 35° for the purpose of optimizing light transmission at particular angles in order to improve wearable display quality.
Regarding Claim 43, Kim in view of Lee and Sulai discloses the wearable display system of claim 37.
Kim fails to disclose that unpolarized light of wavelength in a range from 420nm to 680nm incident of the angularly selective film with an angle of incidence between 35° and 65° has a transmission efficiency of less than .5%.
However, Lee discloses a similar system where for unpolarized light of wavelength in a range from 420nm to 680nm incident of the angularly selective film with an angle of incidence between 35° and 65° has a transmission efficiency of less than .5% (Lee, Paragraph 0107 discloses a similar transmission efficiency within the claimed range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the angularly selective film as disclosed by Kim to have a particular transmission efficiency as disclosed by Lee. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of reducing artifacts caused by external light with large incident angles (Lee, Paragraph 0107).
Regarding Claim 45, Kim in view of Lee and Sulai discloses the wearable display system of claim 37, wherein the polarization adjusting film comprises at least one layer of a birefringent material (Kim, Paragraph 0074).
Regarding Claim 46, Kim in view of Lee and Sulai discloses the wearable display system of claim 45, wherein the at least one layer of birefringent material comprises a C-plate (Kim, Figure 4, C-plate 720, linear polarizers 600/400).
Regarding Claim 47, Kim in view of Lee and Sulai discloses the wearable display system of claim 46, wherein the at least one layer of birefringent material comprises a pair of quarter wave plates, the quarter wave plates being disposed on opposite sides of the C-plate (Kim, Figure 4, quarter wave plates 520/510, C-plate 720).
Regarding Claim 48, Kim in view of Lee and Sulai discloses the wearable display system of claim 47, wherein the each of the pair of quarter wave plate is arranged relative to a corresponding one of the linear polarizers to form a circular polarizer (Kim, Figure 4, quarter wave plates 520/510; Paragraphs 0051-0052).
Regarding Claim 49, Kim in view of Lee and Sulai discloses the wearable display system of claim 46, wherein the at least one layer of birefringent material comprises at least one quarter wave plate (Kim, Figure 4, quarter wave plates 520/510).
Claims 50-55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Lee and Sulai in further view of Fang et al (US Publication No.: US 2018/0113334 A1, “Fang”).
Regarding Claim 50, Kim in view of Lee and Sulai discloses the wearable display system of claim 37.
Kim fails to disclose that the polarization adjusting film is a first polarization adjusting film and the angularly selective film further comprises a second polarizer adjusting film and a third linear polarizer, the second polarization adjusting film being arranged between the pair of linear polarizers and the third linear polarizer.
However, Fang discloses a similar display system where the polarization adjusting film is a first polarization adjusting film and the angularly selective film further comprises a second polarizer adjusting film and a third linear polarizer, the second polarization adjusting film being arranged between the pair of linear polarizers and the third linear polarizer (Fang, Figure 1A, first polarizing adjusting film 121, first linear polarizer 1232, second linear polarizer 1231, second polarizing adjusting film 122, third polarizer 1233; Paragraph 0032).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the display system as disclosed by Kim to include a second polarizing adjusting film as disclosed by Kim. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of optimizing and controlling the viewing angle of the display system (Fang, Paragraphs 0038-0040).
Regarding Claim 51, Kim in view of Lee and Sulai and Fang discloses the wearable display system of claim 50.
Kim fails to disclose that the first and second polarization adjusting films are each composed of one or more layers of birefringent material.
However, Fang discloses a similar display system where the first and second polarization adjusting films are each composed of one or more layers of birefringent material (Fang, Figure 1A, first polarizing adjusting film 121, first linear polarizer 1232, second linear polarizer 1231, second polarizing adjusting film 122, third polarizer 1233; Paragraph 0032).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the display system as disclosed by Kim to include a second polarizing adjusting film as disclosed by Fang. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of optimizing and controlling the viewing angle of the display system (Fang, Paragraphs 0038-0040).
Regarding Claim 52, Kim in view of Lee and Sulai and Fang discloses the wearable display system of claim 50.
Kim fails to disclose that the one or more layers of birefringent materials of the first and second polarization adjusting films each comprises a C-plate.
However, Kim discloses a similar display system where the one or more layers of birefringent materials of the first and second polarization adjusting films each comprises a C-plate (Kim, Figure 4, first polarization adjusting film comprises C-plate 720, second polarization adjusting film comprises C-plate 710).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system as disclosed by Kim to include C-plates as disclosed by Kim. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of minimizing light leakage in a diagonal direction (Kim, Paragraph 0074).
Regarding Claim 53, Kim in view of Lee and Sulai and Fang discloses the wearable display system of claim 52.
Kim fails to disclose that the one or more layers of birefringent materials of the first and second polarization adjusting films each comprise a pair of quarter wave plate arranged on opposite sides of the corresponding C-plate.
However, Kim discloses a similar display where the one or more layers of birefringent materials of the first and second polarization adjusting films each comprise a pair of quarter wave plate arranged on opposite sides of the corresponding C-plate (Kim, Figure 4, pair of quarter wave plates 510/520, C-plates 710/720).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system as disclosed by Kim to include a C-plates sandwiched between quarter wave plates as disclosed by Kim. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of achieving circularly polarized light (Kim, Paragraph 0068).
Regarding Claim 54, Kim in view of Lee and Sulai discloses the wearable display system of claim 37.
Kim fails to disclose that the angularly selective film comprises two or more stages, each stage comprising a polarization adjusting film arranged between a pair of linear polarizers.
However, Fang discloses a similar display system where the angularly selective film comprises two or more stages, each stage comprising a polarization adjusting film arranged between a pair of linear polarizers (Fang, Figure 1A, first stage polarization adjusting film 121, first linear polarizer 1232, second linear polarizer 1231, second stage polarization adjusting film 122, third polarizer 1233; Paragraph 0032).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the display system as disclosed by Kim to include a second polarizing adjusting film as disclosed by Fang. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of optimizing and controlling the viewing angle of the display system (Fang, Paragraphs 0038-0040).
Regarding Claim 55, Kim in view of Fang and Lee and Sulai discloses the wearable display system of claim 54.
Kim fails to disclose that adjacent stages share a linear polarizer.
However, Fang discloses a similar system where adjacent stages share a linear polarizer (Fang, Figure 1A, first stage polarization adjusting film 121 and second stage polarization adjusting film 122 share linear polarizer 1231; Paragraph 0032).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the display system as disclosed by Kim to include a second polarizing adjusting film as disclosed by Kim. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of optimizing and controlling the viewing angle of the display system (Fang, Paragraphs 0038-0040).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 44 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and if the double patenting rejection were overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 44, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest a wearable display system, comprising: an eyepiece stack having a world side and user side opposite the world side, wherein during use a user positioned on the user side views displayed images delivered by the wearable display system via the eyepiece stack which augment the user’s field of view of the user’s environment, and an angularly selective film arranged on the world side of the eyepiece stack, the angularly selective film comprising a passive polarization adjusting film arranged between pair of linear polarizers, wherein for unpolarized light in a wavelength range from 420nm to 680nm, the angularly selective film has a transmission efficiency of 40% or more at angles of incidence less than 35° and has a transmission efficiency of 1% or less for at least one angle of incidence greater than 35, wherein for a D65 source, the angularly selective film shifts a (0.33, 0.33) CIE 1931 white point less than (+/- .02, +/- .02) for unpolarized light with an angle of incident between -32° and +32°, in combination with the remaining features recited in the claim.
The prior art of Kim (US 2019/0086672 A1) discloses a wearable display system, comprising: an eyepiece stack having a world side and user side opposite the world side, wherein during use a user positioned on the user side views displayed images delivered by the wearable display system via the eyepiece stack which augment the user’s field of view of the user’s environment, and an angularly selective film arranged on the world side of the eyepiece stack, the angularly selective film comprising a passive polarization adjusting film arranged between pair of linear polarizers (Kim, Figure 2A). Kim fails to disclose any detail regarding a shift in a color space. The prior art of Lee (US 2019/0227321 A1) discloses ambient light with a particular angle of incidence having a light transmittance of 95% or more (Lee, Paragraph 0107). However, Lee also fails to explicitly disclose a shifting in a specific color space.
Therefore, Claim 44 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and if the double patenting rejection were overcome.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIAM QURESHI whose telephone number is (571)272-4434. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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.
/MARIAM QURESHI/Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights