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 § 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.
Claims 1–4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 10,088,685 to Aharoni et al.
Regarding Claim 1, Aharoni discloses (e.g., at least Figs. 1–4 and 9B and their descriptions) a system (e.g., Fig. 1) comprising: a display device (e.g., 110/410) comprising: a light-emitting unit (e.g., 141/430) comprising: a plurality of red light sources employed to emit red light having at least one first wavelength corresponding to red colour (e.g., col. 8, lines 27–30, associated with 430); a plurality of green light sources employed to emit green light having at least one second wavelength corresponding to green colour (e.g., col. 8, lines 27–30, associated with 430); and a plurality of blue light sources employed to emit blue light having at least one third wavelength corresponding to blue colour (e.g., col. 8, lines 27–30, associated with 430); and a colour filter array 455 arranged on an optical path of the light-emitting unit, the colour filter array comprising: red colour filters whose wavelength band includes the at least one first wavelength (col. 8, lines 45–48); green colour filters whose wavelength band includes the at least one second wavelength (col. 8, lines 45–48); and blue colour filters whose wavelength band includes the at least one third wavelength (col. 8, lines 45–48); an optical combiner 120 arranged on an optical path of the display device and on an optical path of a real-world light field of a real-world environment (e.g., Figs. 1 and 9B), wherein a semi-reflective surface of the optical combiner has a multi-band reflective coating that is configured to selectively reflect the red light having the at least one first wavelength, the green light having the at least one second wavelength, and the blue light having the at least one third wavelength (e.g., tri-chromatic coating, col. 19, line 57 to col. 20, line 15; col. 20, line 44 to col. 21, line 6); and at least one processor configured to: generate or retrieve an image to be displayed via the display device; and display the image via the display device, for producing a synthetic light field (e.g., col. 8, lines 49–53), wherein the optical combiner is employed to selectively reflect the synthetic light field towards eyes of at least one user, whilst optically combining the real-world light field with the synthetic light field (e.g., col. 5, lines 48–63).
Regarding Claim 2, Aharoni discloses wherein the at least one first wavelength comprises two or more first wavelengths corresponding to the red colour (e.g., as illustrated in Fig. 2), wherein the multi-band reflective coating is configured to reflect each of the two or more first wavelengths partially (e.g., tri-chromatic coating, col. 19, line 57 to col. 20, line 15; col. 20, line 44 to col. 21, line 6).
Regarding Claim 3, Aharoni discloses wherein the at least one second wavelength comprises two or more second wavelengths corresponding to the green colour (e.g., as illustrated in Fig. 2), wherein the multi-band reflective coating is configured to reflect each of the two or more second wavelengths partially (e.g., tri-chromatic coating, col. 19, line 57 to col. 20, line 15; col. 20, line 44 to col. 21, line 6).
Regarding Claim 4, Aharoni discloses wherein the at least one third wavelength comprises two or more third wavelengths corresponding to the blue colour (e.g., as illustrated in Fig. 2), wherein the multi-band reflective coating is configured to reflect each of the two or more third wavelengths partially (e.g., tri-chromatic coating, col. 19, line 57 to col. 20, line 15; col. 20, line 44 to col. 21, line 6).
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 5 and 7–9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aharoni.
Regarding Claim 5, Aharoni would have rendered obvious the system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of red light sources, the plurality of green light sources and the plurality of blue light sources are implemented as a plurality of red laser light sources, a plurality of green laser light sources and a plurality of blue laser light sources (e.g., col. 7, lines 32–37 and col. 7. Ine 67 to col. 8, line 2), respectively, wherein the light-emitting unit further comprises a light guide employed to guide the red light, the green light and the blue light towards the colour filter array (e.g., 420), wherein the display device further comprises an active panel (e.g., liquid crystal display, col. 8, line 19) comprising: a liquid crystal layer comprising a plurality of LC cells; a linear polarizer arranged on an optical path of the LC layer; and a first drive circuit employed to individually control the plurality of LC cells of the LC layer, wherein when displaying the image, the at least one processor is configured to: generate drive signals for controlling the plurality of LC cells of the LC layer in the active panel, based on the image; and send the drive signals to the first drive circuit of the active panel, wherein the plurality of LC cells of the LC layer are controlled individually by the first drive circuit using the drive signals, to adjust a polarization of light passing therethrough (where these represent typical features of a liquid crystal display, which operates generally on polarized light to modulate the polarization of the light passing through the liquid crystal layer, and generic driving to achieve desired polarization and display would have been obvious as known components performing known functions to achieve predictable results).
Regarding Claim 7, Aharoni would have rendered obvious wherein the plurality of red laser light sources, the plurality of green laser light sources and the plurality of blue laser light sources are arranged as a plurality of groups, each group comprising at least one of the plurality of red laser light sources, at least one of the plurality of green laser light sources and at least one of the plurality of blue laser light sources (e.g., col. 2, lines 31–62).
Regarding Claim 8, Aharoni would have rendered obvious wherein the plurality of groups are arranged in a side-by-side manner (e.g., Figs. 1 and 4B).
Regarding Claim 9, Aharoni would have rendered obvious wherein at least two of the plurality of groups are arranged at different edges of the light guide (e.g., embodiment of Figs. 5A–B).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aharoni in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0413207 to Kirillov et al.
Regarding Claim 6, Aharoni would have rendered obvious wherein the plurality of red laser light sources, the plurality of green laser light sources and the plurality of blue laser light sources are arranged together as a single group in a proximity of an edge of the light guide (e.g., Figs. 1 and 4B).
Aharoni does not explicitly disclose wherein the light-emitting unit further comprises a spread-out waveguide that is employed to spread the red light, the green light and the blue light across the edge of the light guide.
Kirillov discloses a head mounted display, similar to Aharoni, and Kirillov teaches expanding the eyebox using a spread-out waveguide (e.g., Figs. 2A–D and paragraphs [0029]–[0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device of Aharoni such that the light-emitting unit further comprises a spread-out waveguide that is employed to spread the red light, the green light and the blue light across the edge of the light guide, as suggested by Kirillov, in order to expand the eyebox.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aharoni in view of U.S. Patent No. 12,113,956 to Strandborg.
Regarding Claim 10, Aharoni does not explicitly disclose tracking means and a multiscopic optical element arranged on the optical path of the display device, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: determine a relative location of a first eye and of a second eye of the at least one user with respect to the optical combiner, by utilising the tracking means, wherein the image is a light field image that is generated or retrieved based on the relative location of the first eye and of the second eye of the at least one user with respect to the optical combiner; and control the multiscopic optical element, based on the relative location of the first eye and of the second eye of the at least one user with respect to the optical combiner, to direct light corresponding to a first set of pixels and a second set of pixels of the light field image to produce a first part and a second part of the synthetic light field, respectively, for the first eye and the second eye of the at least one user.
Strandborg discloses a display, and teaches using tracking means and a multiscopic optical element with a processor controlling the device in order to reduce crosstalk of the display and maintain high resolution when present to multiple users (e.g., col. 2, line 45 to col. 3, line 53; col. 5, lines 7–60; and col. 9, lines 20–38), where the system of Strandborg includes the claimed features.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device of Aharoni to include tracking means and a multiscopic optical element arranged on the optical path of the display device, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: determine a relative location of a first eye and of a second eye of the at least one user with respect to the optical combiner, by utilising the tracking means, wherein the image is a light field image that is generated or retrieved based on the relative location of the first eye and of the second eye of the at least one user with respect to the optical combiner; and control the multiscopic optical element, based on the relative location of the first eye and of the second eye of the at least one user with respect to the optical combiner, to direct light corresponding to a first set of pixels and a second set of pixels of the light field image to produce a first part and a second part of the synthetic light field, respectively, for the first eye and the second eye of the at least one user, as suggested by Strandborg, to reduce crosstalk of the display and maintain high resolution when present to multiple users.
Regarding Claims 11–20, these claims recite methods substantially tracking the apparatus claimed in Claims 1–10, respectively, and would have been anticipated and/or rendered obvious in view of the applied references as outlined above with respect to Claims 1–10.
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