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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the phrase “which is rotated 1800 around a perpendicular axis of symmetry passing through center of the SGHCL” that is confusing and indefinite since it is not clear what is being rotated 1800 around the perpendicular axis of the symmetry passing through center of the SGHCL”. The scopes of the claim are indefinite.
The phrases “recording point 01”, the phrase “focus 02” and “reliable guided angle” recited in claim 20 are confusing and indefinite.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 11, 13, 15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US patent issued to Lee et al (US 10,473,939).
Lee et al teaches, with regard to claim 1, a holographic substrate-guided head-mounted see-through display (please see Figures 3 and 4) that is comprised of an image source assembly (310, Figure 3) that is comprised of scanning laser beam (via scanning coupling element 315, Figure 3) or a MicroLED that may serve as the microdisplay, (please see column 6, line 3) with laser illumination, an output waveguide serves as the edge-illuminated transparent substrate (320, Figures 3 or 4) and a single volume holographic grating (please see column 7 line 33) that serves as the single volume substrate-guided holographic continuous lens, (please see columns 7 and 8).
With regard to claim 5, Lee et al teaches the substrate or waveguide comprises a single plate.
With regard to claim 11, Lee et al teaches that the substrate comprises a unitary body, (please see Figures 3 and 4).
With regard to claim 13, Lee et al teaches that the light source assembly (310, Figure 3) comprises a gap relative to the substrate or the waveguide (320).
With regard to claim 15, upon playback the single volume substrate guide holographic grating has a diffracted beam and the playback beam are on the same side, (please see Figure 4).
With retard to claim 17, Lee et al teaches that the light source (310), therefore, the retrieved image may comprise monochrome or polychromatic image, (please see column 8, lines 9-13).
This reference has met all the limitations of the claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 7, 11, and 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the US patent issued to Metz et al (PN. 6,061,463) in view of the US patent issued to Popovich (PN. 6,185,016).
Metz et al teach, with regard to claim 1, a holographic device that is comprised of a light source (1, Figure 2) with laser illumination, an edge-illuminated transparent substrate (2) and a single volume holographic (3) that serves as the single volume substrate guided holographic continuous lens.
This reference has met all the limitations of the claims with the exception that it does not teach explicitly that the light source comprises a scanning laser beam or microdisplay with laser illumination. Popovich in the same field of endeavor teaches a head mounted display device that is comprised of volume holographic elements (116, 118 and/or 120, Figure 5) that is illuminated by a scanning laser beam generated by a laser light source with a scanner (108). It would then have been obvious to apply the teachings of Popovich to modify the holographic device to utilize a scanning laser beam to illuminate the single volume substrate-guided holographic continuous lens for the benefit allowing the device to be utilized in a head-mounted see through display arrangement as explicitly taught by Popovich.
With regard to claim 3, Metz et al teaches that the substrate may be made of acrylic plate with a thickness of 1/8 of an inches which is about 3 mm, (please see column 14, line 54).
With regard to claim 5, Metz et al teaches that the substrate comprises a single plate, (please see Figure 2).
With regard to claim 7, Popovich teaches the light source may also include monochrome microdisplay (12, Figure 1, column 3. Lines 38-39).
With regard to claim 11, Metz et al teaches that the substrate comprises a unitary body, (please see Figure 2).
With regard to claim 13, Metz et al in light of Popovich teaches that the light source comprises the microdisplay may comprise a gap relative to the substrate (2, Figure 2 of Metz et al).
With regard to claims 14 and 15, Metz et al teaches upon replay the single volume hologram (3, Figure 2) the play back beam and the diffracted beam are on the same side of the single volume hologram which means the single volume hologram is reflection hologram, (with regard to claim 15). Popovich teaches that the volume holographic element may be of either a transmission hologram (please see Figure 6), with the playback beam and the diffracted beam be at different side of the holographic elements or a reflection hologram (please see Figure 5) with the playback beam and the diffracted beam be at opposite side of the holographic optical elements.
With regard to claim 16, Metz et al teaches that the substrate may comprise a rectangular shape, (please see Figure 2).
With regard to claim 17, Popovich teaches that either a monochrome or RGB (full-color) image may be produced, (please see columns 3 and 4).
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al in view of the US patent issued to Metz et al (PN. 6,061,463).
The holographic substrate-guided head-mounted see-through display taught by Lee et al as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claim 2, Lee et al teaches that the light source (310, Figure 3) that may comprise microLED that serves as the microdisplay, (please see column 6, line 3) that may either implicitly or obviously be modified with laser based illumination. Lee et al teaches that the edge-illuminated transparent substrate or the output waveguide (320, Figures 3 and 4) comprises an angled edge. Lee et al teaches that the single volume substrate-guided holographic grating is a reflection holographic grating, (please see 360 or 415) wherein upon playback an incident guided beam experience total internal reflection and hits the single volume substrate guided holographic grating at Bragg condition, (please see Figure 4 and Figure 7).
This reference has met all the limitations with the exception that it does not teach explicitly that the single volume substrate guided holographic grating is index-matched to the substrate. Metz et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a single volume hologram (3, Figure 2) that is index matched to a transmissive substrate (2, please see column 9, lines 42-44). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Metz et al to modify the single volume substrate-guided holographic grating to index matched to the substrate for the benefit of reducing unwanted reflection at the interface of the holographic grating and the substrate.
Concerning the phrase “rotated 1800 around a perpendicular axis of symmetry passing through the center of the SGHCL”, this phase is rejected under 35 USC 112, second paragraph, for the reasons set forth above. It cannot be further examined.
With regard to claim 3, Metz et al teaches that the substrate may be made of acrylic plate with a thickness of 1/8 of an inches which is about 3 mm, (please see column 14, line 54).
Claim(s) 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al.
The holographic substrate-guided head-mounted see-through display taught by Lee et al as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claim 6, Lee et al teaches that the substrate or output waveguide (320, Figures 3 and 4) comprises an angled edge. Although this reference does not teach explicitly that the angle is between 15 degrees and 25 degrees, such modification is considered to be obvious to one skilled in the art for the benefit of allowing the light to be properly guided in the substrate.
With regard to claim 16, Lee et al in an alternative embodiment the substrate may have a rectangular shape, (please see 505, Figure 5).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al and Metz et al as described in claim 2 above and further in view of the patent issued to Lawrence et al (PN. 6,236,793).
The holographic substrate-guided head-mounted see-through display taught by Lee et al in view of Metz et al as described in claims 1 and 2 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claim 4, Metz et al teaches the substrate may comprise glass or acrylic, (please see column 14, line 54). These references do not teach explicitly that to include an index matching prisms. Lawrence et al in the same field of endeavor teaches that it is known in the art to use an index matching prism (30, Figure 4) to allow the light be properly guided into the substrate or waveguide. It would then have been obvious to use an index matching prism for the benefit of allowing the light be guided properly. Lawrence et al teaches that the index matching may include glass, (please see Table 1).
Claim(s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al, and in view of the US patent issued to Popovich (PN. 6,185,016).
The holographic substrate-guided head-mounted see-through display taught by Lee et al as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claim 7, this reference does not teach explicitly that the microdisplay comprises the cited display device. Popovich in the same field of endeavor teaches a holographic waveguide display wherein the image source may comprise a display (12, Figure 1) that may comprise liquid crystal display (LCD, please see column 3, line 65). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use art well-known display device as the image source for the benefit of using art well-known display device for the holographic waveguide display.
With regard to claim 14, Popovich teaches that the volume holographic element may be of either a transmission hologram (please see Figure 6), with the playback beam and the diffracted beam be at different side of the holographic elements or a reflection hologram (please see Figure 5) with the playback beam and the diffracted beam be at opposite side of the holographic optical elements.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al, and in view of the US patent application publication by Suzuki et al (US 2019/0331921 A1).
The holographic substrate-guided head-mounted see-through display taught by Lee et al as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claim 8, this reference does not teach explicitly to include an antireflective coating. Suzuki et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a holographic waveguide display that is comprised of an anti-reflective coating (512, Figure 1) at a side of the substrate (500) opposite to an eye of the viewer. It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Suzuki et al to include an anti-reflective coating at the side surface of the substrate opposite to the side facing the eye of the viewer for the benefit of reducing unwanted reflection of light at the opposite side surface of the substrate.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et and in view of the US patent application publication by Popovich et al (US 2015/0160529 A1).
The holographic substrate-guided head-mounted see-through display taught by Lee et al as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claims 9 and 10, these references do not teach explicitly that the substrate may alternatively comprises a curved shape or to comprise prescription glasses.
Popovich et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a holographic waveguide display wherein that substrate may comprise curved shape, (please see Figure 8). With regard to claim 10, Popovich et al further teaches that the substrate may comprise spectacle prescription, (please see paragraph [0135]).
It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Popovich et al to modify the waveguide holographic display to alternatively have the substrate assume curved shape and/or to comprise prescription glasses for the benefit of allowing the waveguide holographic display meets different application requirements.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al, and in view of the US patent application publication by Jagt et al (US 2003/0067760 A1).
The holographic substrate-guided head-mounted see-through display taught by Lee et al as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claim 12, this reference does not teach explicitly that the edges of the substrate comprise a light absorptive coating. Jagt et al in the same field of endeavor teaches an edge-lit holographic display wherein an absorptive coating (89, Figure 17) may be provided at an edge of the substrate to recycle and absorb the light incident at the edge of the substrate. It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Jagt et al to modify the substrate to include an absorptive coating at the edge for the benefit of absorbing light incident at the edge to reduce unwanted light to improve the viewing quality.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al, and in view of the US patent application publication by Butler et al (US 2002/0085175 A1).
The holographic substrate-guided head-mounted see-through display taught by Lee et al as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claim 18, Lee et al teaches a modulated scanning laser beam, but it does not teach explicitly to include a diffuser. Butler et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a display that is comprised of a focused, modulated, scanning laser beam (52, Figure 6 of Butler et al) and diffuser (54, Figure 6 of Butler et al). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the display to included focused laser beam and diffuser for the benefit of allowing the illuminating light has desired property.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent issued to Metz et al (PN. 6,061,463) in view of US patent application publication by Dimov et al (US 2012/0170090).
Metz et al teaches, with regard to claim 19, a method for recording a volume reflection single volume substrate guide holographic continuous lens (3, Figure 2 and Figure 8) that is comprised of a step of shining two beams two beams (30 and 31, Figure 8) unto a holographic photopolymer (3) that is index matched to a substrate (2, please see column 9, lines 43-45), wherein a first recording beam or reference beam (30) is guided from an edge of the substrate (2) and a second recording beam or object beam (31) is illuminating from an opposite to the holographic polymer, (please see Figure 8). Metz et al teaches that the first recording beam (30) may be collimated, converging or diverging (please see column 14, lines 14-15) and the second bream (31) may be collimated, converging or diverging (please see column 14, lines 23-24). This reference however does not teach explicitly that the first recording beam is convergent and the second recoding beam is divergent. Dimov et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a reflection hologram recording wherein the object beam (810, Figure 8A) is a divergent beam and the reference beam (802) is a convergent beam that is focus to a focus point (807). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Dimov et al to make the reference beam of Metz et al from the edge of the substrate to be convergent beam and the object beam to be a divergent beam for the benefit of recording the reflection single volume substrate guided holographic element meets the desired application.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metz et al and Dimov et al as applied to claim 19 above and further in view of the patent issued to Wreede et al (PN. 5,499,116), and US patent application publication by Kurashige et al (US 2013/0077057 A1).
The method for recording a reflection SGHCL taught by Metz et al in combination with the teachings of Dimov et al as described in claim 19 above has met all the limitations of the claim.
With regard to claim 20, Metz et al in light of Dimov et al teaches that the first recording beam (30, Figure 8 of Metz et al or 802, Figure 8A) may be directed to the recording medium (3 or 806) as convergent beam with a focus point (807) using a focus lens (814) that serves as the long focus lens and the second recording beam (810, Figure 8A of Dimov et al) is divergent with a focus (822) in plane created by a lens (820) that serve as the high numerical aperture lens.
These references have met all the limitations of the claim. They however do not teach explicitly that the substrate is index-matched to a first rectangular block having an angled edge and a second rectangular block placed underneath the holographic polymer to avoid total internal reflection.
Wreede et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a reflection hologram recording method wherein a holographic recording layer (61, Figure 2) is placed between a first rectangular block (77, Figure 2) with an angled edge and a second rectangular block (62) wherein the holographic recording layer is refractive index matching to the first and second rectangular blocks via an index matching fluid (79 and 64). It would then have been obvious to apply the teachings of Wreede et al to modify the recording method of Metz et al to have the hologram photopolymer recording layer index-matched to the substrate be placed between the first and second rectangular blocks for the benefit of avoiding unwanted noise be recording in the holographic element.
These references further do not teach explicitly to include a cylinder lens to converge the convergent recording beam. However, such practice is well known in the art as demonstrated by the disclosure of Kurashige et al, wherein a cylinder lens (24, Figure 17) is used in a holographic recording process to converge the convergent recording beam (L21). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings to alternatively use a cylinder lens to converge the convergent recoding beam as desire. It is implicitly true or obvious to one skilled in the art to adjust the position of the cylinder lens to control the light properties such as aberration.
With regard to the features “recording convergent beam comprises angle with the substrate and holographic polymer less than or equal to 480”, “a reliable guided angle is greater than about 120”, “a minimum angle of a convergent beam with a holographic polymer surface comprises about 140 and a maximum angle of the convergent beam with the holographic polymer surface comprises about 310 with central beam having 150 to 250”, although these references do not teach explicitly about the angle of the convergent recording beam (30, Figure 8 of Metz et al in light of Dimov et al), is making the claimed angles with regard to the surface of the holographic polymer, such features are either implicitly included or obvious modification by one skilled in the art since such modification involves only common knowledge in the art concerning orientation of the recording beam and the expansion of the recording beam to make the record holographic lens has the desired properties.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUDREY Y CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2309. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 900AM-430PM.
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, Stephone B Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
AUDREY Y. CHANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/AUDREY Y CHANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights