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 (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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. 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, 2, 6, and 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danziger et al. (US 20200120329 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Danziger discloses (e.g. Figs 4–6 and their description) an apparatus, comprising: a support frame (52) operable to be removably coupled (paragraph [0063] teaches external jig 52, reasonably suggesting that it is removably coupled) to a wearable augmented-reality display (WARD) system (paragraph [0050], “binocular augmented reality display device”); a collimator coupled to the support frame and comprising one or more collimating lenses (paragraph [0064],"typically collimated at infinity", reasonably suggesting a collimator with collimator lens); and a graticule (paragraph [0064], “alignment image may be an X crosshair”) to align with one or more alignment indicators emitted from the WARD system (paragraphs [0063] and [0064], Figs. 5 and 6).
Regarding claim 2, Danziger would have rendered obvious the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the support frame is configurable to accommodate multiple distinct wearable augmented-reality display (WARD) systems having multiple distinct physical parameters (where Danziger teaches external jig 52 firmly holding the device, paragraph [0063], suggesting being able to align the optical axes, but appears silent regarding the ability to hold variously sized devices; however, forming the jig to be adjustable or able to accommodate variously sized devices would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, to facilitate usability of a single jig for variously sized devices, yielding predictable results, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features, see, e.g., MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 6, Danziger would have rendered obvious the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the support frame is operable to be removably coupled to one or more datum surfaces of the WARD system (Danziger teaches an external jig 52 connected to the device, Figs. 5-6 and paragraph [0063], but appears to be silent about the jig being able to hold the device at multiple datum surfaces; however, designing the jig to form multiple points of contact for removably coupling to WARD systems would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, to enable a more secure and rigid coupling to the device, yielding predictable results, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features, see, e.g., MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 11, Danziger would have rendered obvious the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a user interface (“manually-controlled adjustment process using a suitable graphic user interface (not shown) is also possible”, paragraph [0064]) on the support frame for adjusting one or more of a position of the collimator relative to the WARD system or an orientation of the collimator relative to the WARD system (“manually-controlled adjustment process using a suitable graphic user interface (not shown) is also possible”, paragraph [0064]).
Claims 3–5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danziger et al. (US 20200120329 A1) in view of Freeman (US 20210257084 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Danziger appears silent regarding further details of collimating, and thus does not explicitly disclose the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the collimator comprises one or more retroreflectors.
Freeman discloses an augmented reality device (similar to Danziger), and Freeman discloses that a collimating system may preferably be formed using catadioptric optics, where the catadioptric optics include both reflective and transmissive components, and achieves superior image quality when viewed binocularly (paragraph [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device of Danziger to include the catadioptric collimating solution of Freeman in order to achieve superior image quality; and it further would have been obvious to use a retroreflector as the reflective component of the catadioptric optical element for the known reflective advantages of retroreflectors.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Danziger and Freeman would have rendered obvious the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the collimator comprises one or more catadioptric lenses (paragraph [0054] of Freeman).
Regarding claim 5, Danziger does not explicitly disclose a collimator comprising multiple collimating lenses.
Freeman teaches a wearable augmented reality device and lens that may comprise one or more collimators (14, paragraph [0077]). Freeman also discloses that the collimator may be capable of concentrating rays from the light engine assemblies (micro-displays 44 of Freeman) while utilizing less resolution in the periphery for an overall highest resolution and field of vision (paragraph [0077] of Freeman).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device of Danziger to include a collimator comprising multiple collimating lenses as in Freeman in order to maximize resolution and field of view in the eye box of the apparatus as claimed.
Regarding claim 7, Danziger would have rendered obvious the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the collimator is configured to be aligned (“The projector and the camera are preferably aligned with their optical axes parallel to each other”, paragraph [0063]) using an optical element of the removably coupled WARD system as a reference plane (it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to have the reference plane of the collimator aligned with the plane being used in the optical system to ensure proper function when attached to the WARD system).
Claims 8, 10, 12, 16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danziger et al. (US 20200120329 A1) in view of Pyser-SGL Limited (PYSER-SGI LTD., "Small Arms Collimators: Increasing First-Round Hit Ratios to Improve Soldier Lethality and Confidence," Power Point Presentation uploaded to << https://www.slideserve.com/gaetan/small-arms-collimators>> on 21 October 2014; 10 pages; copy provided by Applicant in the 12/13/2024 IDS).
Regarding claim 8, Danziger teaches an external jig 52 connected to a WARD system (Fig. 6 paragraph [0064]) where the alignment pattern from projectors 54U and 54D are directed towards camera 56 for manually-controlled adjustment of the WARD system (paragraph [0064]; “a manually-controlled adjustment process using a suitable graphic user interface (not shown) is also possible”).
Danziger does not explicitly disclose the alignment image being projected to an eye of a user, and thus does not disclose the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the collimator is configured to project an alignment pattern towards at least one eye of a user, and wherein the alignment pattern comprises the one or more alignment indicators.
Pyser-SGL discloses an apparatus (Small arms collimators) consisting of a main body, an optical housing, a graticule and a light source (page 6; page 7, top right). Pyser-SGL further discloses the projection of the graticule to an eye of a user (pages 7-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to replace camera 56 of Danziger with one or both eyes of a user to yield predictable results of the user viewing the alignment pattern, especially where Danziger teaches that the adjustments may be made manually (paragraph [0064] of Danziger), absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features, see, e.g., MPEP § 2144.04), and wherein the alignment pattern comprises the one or more alignment indicators (“two visually-distinguished X crosshairs then need to be brought into alignment”, paragraph [0064] of Danziger).
Regarding claim 10, Danziger would have rendered obvious the apparatus of claim 9, further comprising one or more user controls (“manually-controlled adjustment process using a suitable graphic user interface (not shown) is also possible”, paragraph [0064]) to align an instance of the alignment pattern projected towards the first eye of the user with an instance of the alignment pattern projected towards the second eye of the user (Danziger discloses the alignment process can be performed sequentially or simultaneously for the left and right eyes of the user, paragraph [0066]).
Regarding claim 12, Danziger discloses (e.g. Figs 4–6 and their description) a display system (Fig. 3, paragraph [0060]), comprising: a support frame (52) configured to be worn proximate to an eye of a user (“binocular augmented reality display”, see description); a light engine coupled to the support frame and operable to emit display light comprising an alignment pattern (“Optics assemblies 40R and 40L project the image”, paragraph [0060]); a collimator coupled to the support frame and comprising one or more collimating lenses (paragraph [0064],"typically collimated at infinity", reasonably suggesting a collimator with collimator lens) to direct the display light towards a camera; and a graticule (paragraph [0064], “alignment image may be an X crosshair”) to align with the alignment pattern (paragraphs [0063] and [0064], Figs. 5 and 6).
Danziger teaches the light directed towards a camera, and thus does not explicitly disclose the light directed towards the eye of a user.
Pyser-SGL discloses an apparatus (Small arms collimators) consisting of a main body, an optical housing, a graticule and a light source (page 6; page 7, top right), similar to Danziger. Pyser-SGL further discloses the projection of the graticule to an eye of a user (pages 7-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to replace camera 56 of Danziger with one or both eyes of a user to yield predictable results of the user viewing the alignment pattern, especially where Danziger teaches that the adjustments may be made manually (paragraph [0064] of Danziger), absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features, see, e.g., MPEP § 2144.04.
Regarding claim 16, Danziger would have rendered obvious the display system of claim 12, further comprising one or more user controls for adjusting one or more of a position of the collimator relative to the light engine or an orientation of the collimator relative to the light engine (Danziger discloses support structure 46 that enables IPD adjustment, paragraph [0060]).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Danziger and Pyser-SGL (where their teachings are combined as discussed above with respect to apparatus claim 12) would have rendered obvious a method, comprising: receiving display light representing an optical alignment pattern from a light engine (projectors 54U and 54D, paragraph [0060] of Danziger; tritium light source of Pyser-SGL, page 6); collimating the received display light via one or more collimating optical elements (paragraph [0064] of Danziger, “typically collimated at infinity", reasonably suggesting a collimator with collimator lens; Pyser-SGL discloses a device containing collimators, page 3); and redirecting the collimated display light towards an eye of a user for comparison with a graticule comprising the optical alignment pattern (Pyser-SGL discloses the projection of the graticule to an eye of a user, pages 7-8).
Regarding claim 19, Danziger discloses the method of claim 18, wherein the one or more collimating optical elements and graticule are coupled to a support frame that is operable to be removably coupled (paragraph [0063] of Danziger teaches external jig 52, reasonably suggesting that it is removably coupled) to a wearable augmented-reality display (WARD) system that includes the light engine (optical elements 40L and 40R, paragraph [0060] of Danziger).
Claims 9, 13–15, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danziger and Pyser-SGL, further in view of Freeman.
Regarding claim 9, Danziger appears silent regarding further details of collimating, and thus does not explicitly disclose the apparatus of claim 8, wherein the device comprises first and second collimators that are respectively configured to project the alignment pattern towards first and second eyes of the user.
Freeman teaches a wearable augmented reality device and lens that may comprise one or more collimators (14, paragraph [0077] of Freeman). Freeman also discloses that the collimator may be capable of concentrating rays from the light engine assemblies (micro-displays 44 of Freeman) while utilizing less resolution in the periphery for an overall highest resolution and field of vision (paragraph [0077] of Freeman).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device of Danziger and Pyser-SGL to include a collimator comprising multiple collimating lenses as in Freeman in order to maximize resolution and field of view in the eye box of the apparatus as claimed. It would have further been obvious to incorporate collimating lenses to both the left and right optical elements of the device described in Fig. 3 of Danziger to yield predictable results of providing a 3D image (paragraph [0054] of Freeman), absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features, see, e.g., MPEP § 2144.04.
Regarding claim 13, Danziger appears silent regarding further details of the collimating, and thus does not explicitly disclose the apparatus of claim 12, wherein the collimator comprises one or more of a group that includes a retroreflector, a catadioptric lens, or multiple collimating lenses.
Freeman discloses an augmented reality device (similar to Danziger), and Freeman discloses that a collimating system may preferably be formed using catadioptric optics, where the catadioptric optics include both reflective and transmissive components, and achieves superior image quality when viewed binocularly (paragraph [0053]). Freeman also discloses a wearable augmented reality device and lens that may comprise one or more collimators (14, paragraph [0077]). Freeman also discloses that the collimator may be capable of concentrating rays from the light engine assemblies (micro-displays 44 of Freeman) while utilizing less resolution in the periphery for an overall highest resolution and field of vision (paragraph [0077] of Freeman).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the display system of Danziger and Pyser-SGL to include the catadioptric collimating solution of Freeman in order to achieve superior image quality; and it further would have been obvious to use a retroreflector as the reflective component of the catadioptric optical element for the known reflective advantages of retroreflectors. Additionally, it would have been obvious to modify the display system of Danziger to include a collimator comprising multiple collimating lenses as in Freeman in order to maximize resolution and field of view in the eye box of the apparatus as claimed.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Danziger, Pyser-SGL, and Freeman would have rendered obvious the display system of claim 12, comprising first and second collimators coupled to the support frame, wherein the first and second collimators are respectively configured to project the alignment pattern towards first and second eyes of the user (Fig. 3 of Danziger, Fig. 7 of Freeman, collimator 14 of Freeman, paragraph [0077] of Freeman, and it would have further been obvious to incorporate collimating lenses to both the left and right optical elements of the device described in Fig. 3 of Danziger to yield predictable results of providing a 3D image (paragraph [0054] of Freeman).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Danziger, Pyser-SGL, and Freeman would have rendered obvious the display system of claim 14, further comprising one or more user controls (“manually-controlled adjustment process using a suitable graphic user interface (not shown) is also possible”, paragraph [0064] of Danziger) to align a first instance of the alignment pattern projected towards the first eye of the user with a second instance of the alignment pattern projected towards the second eye of the user (Danziger discloses the alignment process can be performed sequentially or simultaneously for the left and right eyes of the user, paragraph [0066]).
Regarding claim 17, Danziger appears silent regarding further details of the alignment pattern, and thus does not disclose the display system of claim 12, wherein the graticule comprises a holographically generated instance of the alignment pattern.
Freeman discloses an augmented reality display device (similar to Danziger) and teaches virtual image display solutions that form superior 3D images and holographic images when viewed binocularly (paragraph [0054] of Freeman).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the display system of Danziger and Pyser-SGL to comprise a holographically generated instance of the alignment pattern, as suggested by Freeman, to yield predictable results of a superior image, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features, see, e.g., MPEP § 2144.04.
Regarding claim 20, Danziger appears silent regarding further details of the alignment pattern, and thus does not disclose the method of claim 18, wherein the graticule comprises a holographically generated instance of the alignment pattern.
Freeman discloses an augmented reality display device (similar to Danziger) and teaches virtual image display solutions that form superior 3D images and holographic images when viewed binocularly (paragraph [0054] of Freeman).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the method of Danziger and Pyser-SGL to comprise a holographically generated instance of the alignment pattern, as suggested by Freeman, to yield predictable results of a superior image, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features, see, e.g., MPEP § 2144.04.
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