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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 1 recites the phrase “focusing encoded light beam onto the light-guiding optical element” that is not fully supported and not enable by the specification of originally filed.
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, and 4-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication by David (US 2004/0174348 A1) in view of the US patent issued to Schultz et al (PN. 8,649,099 A1).
David teaches an image display system and method for operation, wherein the method is comprised of a method step of providing a display source, (please see Figures 1a and 2) that has an emission area, and a method step of providing a transparent substrate plate (21) serves as the light-guided optical element having an output field of view. David teaches as shown in Figure 2, different segments of the display source are activated to generate encoded light beams with image data such that the encoded light beams project to the light-guiding optical element and projecting the encoded light beams (26B, 26G and 26R) from a portion of the output field of view of the light-guiding optical element that corresponds to the portion of the emission area of the display source, (please see Figure 2).
This reference has met all the limitations of the claims. It however does not teach explicitly that the encoded light beams are generated by a light source having emission area. Schultz et al in the same field of endeavor teaches that the encoded light beam may be generated by light source (14, Figure 1) with emission area to illuminate a spatial light modulator (18) with encoded image data. It would then have been obvious to apply the teachings of Schultz et al to alternatively using a light source and a spatial light modulator to generate the encoded light beam.
With regard to claims 4 and 5, Schultz et al teaches that the image data for encoding the light is by using a spatial light modulator (18, Figure 1). In light of David, Schultz et al teaches that the light beam may illuminate a portion of the spatial light modulator that corresponds to the portion of the emission area.
With regard to claims 6 and 7, David teaches that the light-guiding optical element (21) comprises an in-coupling grating (22, Figure 2) that admits the encoded light beam into the light-guiding optical element. The admitting of the encoded light beam in the in-coupling grating (22) of the light-guided optical element comprises encountering the in-coupling grating only.
With regard to claims 8-10, Schultz et al teaches to include an aperture (please see Figure 1) serves as a mask that is capable of modifying a shape of the pupil formed by the encoded light beam. The aperture or the mask is adjacent to the light-guiding optical element.
With regard to claim 10, Schultz et al teaches to include an aperture (please see Figure 1) serves as an optical element for modifying a size of the pupil formed by the encoded light beam.
With regard to claims 11 and 12, Schultz et al teaches to include an imaging lens (24, Figure 1) that serves as the injection optical system to focus the encoded light beam onto the light-guiding element. The injection optical system or the imaging lens is characterized by an eccentric cross-section along an optical path of the injection optical system.
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over David and Schultz et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of the US patent application publication by Jarvenpaa et al (US 2013/0088780 A1).
The method for operating an imaging system that is taught by David in combination with the teachings of Schultz et al as described in claim above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claims 2 and 3, these references do not teach explicitly that the light source comprises a plurality of sub-light sources and activation of the segment of the light source comprises using a mask to block light produced by the light source. Jarvenpaa et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a display unit (115, Figure 1b) with a shutter (119, 120 and 121, please see paragraph [0033]) that may be switched independently to allow a segment of the display unit to be blocked or transmitted. The shutters (119, 120, and 121) and the display unit (115) essentially function as a plurality of sub-display units that essentially comprises a plurality of sub-light sources.
It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Jarvenpaa et al to provide a plurality of shutters, serves as a mask, to modify the display unit or the light source to allow only a segment of the light source be activated and therefore make the light source to essentially comprises a plurality of sub-light sources.
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over David and Schultz et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of the US patent issued to Hanano et al (PN. 5,661,603).
The method for operating an imaging system that is taught by David in combination with the teachings of Schultz et al as described in claim above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claims 13 and 14, the input/output arrangement of the light guiding element taught by David may provide expansion of the pupil. But these references do not teach explicitly to increase a numerical aperture of the light source using a pupil expander includes a film have prism pattern. Hanano et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a pupil expander that is comprised of a pair of prisms, (13 and 14, Figures 7 and 8). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Hanano et al to include a pupil expander for the benefit of expanding the pupil of the view.
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