DETAILED ACTION
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.
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 1, 6, 8, 15, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,189,127. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the reference US 12,189,127 teaches all the elements of claims 1, 6, 8, 15, and 20 of the current application.
ASN 18/965,083 (Current Application)
US 12,189,127
1. A head mounted display (HMD) comprising: a microscopic mirror; a microelectromechanical system (MEMS) coupled to the microscopic mirror and configured to tilt the microscopic mirror at varying scan angles along a scanning axis, wherein the microscopic mirror is rotatable about a rotation axis, which is different than the scanning axis, and wherein, when a tilt angle of the microscopic mirror is set to a value of 0, the rotation axis is perpendicular to a plane formed by the microscopic mirror; and a light emitter that directs light into the microscopic mirror, wherein the light emitter is modulated based on a position of the microscopic mirror, wherein the HMD generates an image by scanning the light in accordance with a curvilinear scan pattern.
1. A head mounted display (HMD) comprising: a microscopic mirror; a microelectromechanical system (MEMS) coupled to the microscopic mirror and configured to tilt the microscopic mirror at varying scan angles along a scanning axis, wherein the microscopic mirror is rotatable about a rotation axis, which is different than the scanning axis, and wherein, when a tilt angle of the microscopic mirror is set to a value of 0, the rotation axis is perpendicular to a plane formed by the microscopic mirror; and a light emitter that directs light into the microscopic mirror, wherein the light emitter is modulated based on a position of the microscopic mirror due to the microscopic mirror being tilted along the scanning axis and rotated about the rotation axis, wherein the HMD generates an image by scanning the light in accordance with a curvilinear scan pattern, and wherein the MEMS is further configured to deform the light differently for different scan angles, said deforming enables pixels of different sizes to be projected.
6. The HMD of claim 1, wherein the rotation axis is perpendicular to the scanning axis.
7. The HMD of claim 1, wherein the rotation axis is perpendicular to the scanning axis.
8. A computer system comprising: a microscopic mirror; a microelectromechanical system (MEMS) coupled to the microscopic mirror and configured to tilt the microscopic mirror at varying scan angles along a scanning axis, wherein the microscopic mirror is rotatable about a rotation axis, which is different than the scanning axis, and wherein, when a tilt angle of the microscopic mirror is set to a value of 0, the rotation axis is perpendicular to a plane formed by the microscopic mirror; and a light emitter that directs light into the microscopic mirror, wherein the light emitter is modulated based on a position of the microscopic mirror, wherein the computer system generates an image by scanning the light in accordance with a curvilinear scan pattern.
1. A head mounted display (HMD) comprising: a microscopic mirror; a microelectromechanical system (MEMS) coupled to the microscopic mirror and configured to tilt the microscopic mirror at varying scan angles along a scanning axis, wherein the microscopic mirror is rotatable about a rotation axis, which is different than the scanning axis, and wherein, when a tilt angle of the microscopic mirror is set to a value of 0, the rotation axis is perpendicular to a plane formed by the microscopic mirror; and a light emitter that directs light into the microscopic mirror, wherein the light emitter is modulated based on a position of the microscopic mirror due to the microscopic mirror being tilted along the scanning axis and rotated about the rotation axis, wherein the HMD generates an image by scanning the light in accordance with a curvilinear scan pattern, and wherein the MEMS is further configured to deform the light differently for different scan angles, said deforming enables pixels of different sizes to be projected.
15. A computer system comprising: a microscopic mirror; a microelectromechanical system (MEMS) coupled to the microscopic mirror and configured to tilt the microscopic mirror at varying scan angles along a scanning axis, wherein the microscopic mirror is rotatable about a rotation axis, which is different than the scanning axis, and wherein, when a tilt angle of the microscopic mirror is set to a value of 0, the rotation axis is perpendicular to a plane formed by the microscopic mirror; and a light emitter that directs light into the microscopic mirror, wherein the light emitter is modulated based on a position of the microscopic mirror, wherein the computer system generates an image by scanning the light in accordance with a curvilinear scan pattern, and wherein different pixels of the image have different sizes.
1. A head mounted display (HMD) comprising: a microscopic mirror; a microelectromechanical system (MEMS) coupled to the microscopic mirror and configured to tilt the microscopic mirror at varying scan angles along a scanning axis, wherein the microscopic mirror is rotatable about a rotation axis, which is different than the scanning axis, and wherein, when a tilt angle of the microscopic mirror is set to a value of 0, the rotation axis is perpendicular to a plane formed by the microscopic mirror; and a light emitter that directs light into the microscopic mirror, wherein the light emitter is modulated based on a position of the microscopic mirror due to the microscopic mirror being tilted along the scanning axis and rotated about the rotation axis, wherein the HMD generates an image by scanning the light in accordance with a curvilinear scan pattern, and wherein the MEMS is further configured to deform the light differently for different scan angles, said deforming enables pixels of different sizes to be projected.
20. The computer system of claim 15, wherein the rotation axis is perpendicular to the scanning axis.
7. The HMD of claim 1, wherein the rotation axis is perpendicular to the scanning axis.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable pending the filing of a Terminal Disclaimer in view of the nonstatutory double patenting rejection above.
Claims 2-5,7,9-14, and 16-19 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not disclose the claimed combination of limitations to warrant a rejection under 35 USC 102 or 103.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art does not disclose the claimed HMD specifically including as the distinguishing features in combination with the other limitations the claimed “wherein the MEMS is further configured to deform the light differently for different scan angles.”
Regarding claim 3, the prior art does not disclose the claimed HMD specifically including as the distinguishing features in combination with the other limitations the claimed “wherein the MEMS deforms the light differently for different scan angles to produce pixels of different sizes.”
Regarding claim 4, the prior art does not disclose the claimed HMD specifically including as the distinguishing features in combination with the other limitations the claimed “wherein the microscopic mirror is a biased microscopic mirror.”
Regarding claim 5, the prior art does not disclose the claimed HMD specifically including as the distinguishing features in combination with the other limitations the claimed “wherein the microscopic mirror is subjected to a phase shift.”
Regarding claim 7, the prior art does not disclose the claimed HMD specifically including as the distinguishing features in combination with the other limitations the claimed “wherein pixel sizes are different for different pixels of the image.”
Regarding claim 9, the prior art does not disclose the claimed computer system specifically including as the distinguishing features in combination with the other limitations the claimed “wherein the MEMS is further configured to deform the light differently for different scan angles.”
Regarding claim 10, the prior art does not disclose the claimed computer system specifically including as the distinguishing features in combination with the other limitations the claimed “
wherein the MEMS deforms the light differently for different scan angles to produce pixels of different sizes.”
Regarding claim 11, the prior art does not disclose the claimed computer system specifically including as the distinguishing features in combination with the other limitations the claimed “
wherein the microscopic mirror is a biased microscopic mirror.”
Regarding claim 12, the prior art does not disclose the claimed computer system specifically including as the distinguishing features in combination with the other limitations the claimed “
wherein the microscopic mirror is subjected to a phase shift.”
Regarding claim 13, the prior art does not disclose the claimed computer system specifically including as the distinguishing features in combination with the other limitations the claimed “
wherein the rotation axis is perpendicular to the scanning axis.”
Regarding claim 14, the prior art does not disclose the claimed computer system specifically including as the distinguishing features in combination with the other limitations the claimed “
wherein pixel sizes are different for different pixels of the image.”
Regarding claim 16, the prior art does not disclose the claimed computer system specifically including as the distinguishing features in combination with the other limitations the claimed “wherein the MEMS is further configured to deform the light differently for different scan angles.”
Regarding claim 17, the prior art does not disclose the claimed computer system specifically including as the distinguishing features in combination with the other limitations the claimed “wherein the MEMS deforms the light differently for different scan angles to produce the pixels having different sizes.”
Regarding claim 18, the prior art does not disclose the claimed computer system specifically including as the distinguishing features in combination with the other limitations the claimed “wherein the microscopic mirror is a biased microscopic mirror.”
Regarding claim 19, the prior art does not disclose the claimed computer system specifically including as the distinguishing features in combination with the other limitations the claimed “
wherein the microscopic mirror is subjected to a phase shift.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY DUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-0534. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 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, Pinping Sun can be reached at (571)270-1284. 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.
/HENRY DUONG/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872 07/10/26
Prosecution Insights