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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a first length of the in-coupler is less than a second length of an exit pupil of the light field generator” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-20 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 1 recites “a waveguide, configured to diffract the set of light beams by a total internal reflection”. It is unclear if this limitation contains grammatical errors or limits the structure of the apparatus on account of a waveguide inherently providing total internal reflection (by definition) and structures added to waveguides configured to diffract light beams, but an absence of structures “configured to diffract … by a total internal reflection”. Applicant discloses modes of propagation for diffracted light within a waveguide (Specifications [0011],[0014],[0063],[0069]-[0070]) such that at least on diffracted beam is formed by an in-coupler structure disclosed to be “on the waveguide” and subsequently confined to the waveguide via internal reflections. The claim language does not parallel this disclosure and a person having ordinary skill in the art would not understand if the claim language should be understood to require diffraction to be effectuated by the waveguide itself or effectuated by a structure in connection with the waveguide or understood to require total internal reflection occurs at diffractive structures of the waveguide or some alternative mode of propagation. As there are no disclosed structure of the waveguide itself necessarily effectuating the diffraction (e.g. a surface relief grating formed on the waveguide substrate), the claim will be understood, for the purpose of examination, to require a waveguide to be capable of guiding diffracted light and internally reflected light. Dependent Claims 2-20 fail to remedy the indefiniteness and are therefore rejected as indefinite.
Claim 12 recites “a first length of the in-coupler is less than a second length of an exit pupil of the light field generator, wherein the exit pupil is located between the waveguide and the light field generator”. In the disclosure, Applicant describes “a first length L of the in-coupler INC is less than a second length Px1 of the exit pupil ETP1 of the light field generator LFG” in connection with Fig. 6. In the depiction of these lengths (i.e. L and Px1), L > Px1 a it is in Figures 7-10 as well. In connection to Fig. 10, Applicant describes the lengths “exit pupil ETP2 may have a third length Px2, and the third length Px2 is less than or equal to the first length L of the in-coupler INC, but the present disclosure is not limited thereto”. In light of the Specifications, a person having ordinary skill in the art would not have understood the metes and bounds of the phrasing “length of the in-coupler” as there is no clear disclosure of an in-coupler that wholly satisfies the claimed requirement. It is unclear if Applicant intends to associated “a length of the in-coupler” as less than a whole extent of the in-coupler and for that seemingly arbitrary portion to measure “less than a second length of an exit pupil of the light field generator”. In a vacuum, there is no indefiniteness in the phrasing as an artisan would understand that an in-coupler length may be dimensioned relative to a light source. In light of the Specifications, however, an artisan would not understand the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. For the purpose of examination, “a first length of the in-coupler” will be understood to mean any arbitrary length of any portion of the in-coupler (e.g. a grating pitch, sub-unit length, etc.) and is not limited to an edge-to-edge length of the in-coupler as shown in Applicant’s figures. Claim 13-14 are rejected as indefinite for failing to cure the deficiencies of the base claim.
Claim 13 recites “a calculation of an F-number uses a following formula: F# = (Px/f)NVNH wherein the F-number of a micro-projector of the light field generator is represented by F#, wherein the second length of the exit pupil of the light field generator is represented by Px, wherein an effective focal length of the light field generator is represented by f, wherein a first number of micro-projectors of the light field generator in vertical direction is represented by NV , wherein a second number of micro-projectors of the light field generator in horizontal direction is represented by NH, wherein the F-number is set to a value ranging from (Px/2f)NVNH to (2Px/f)NVNH”. Firstly, the expression for “the F-number of a micro-projector of the light-field generator” is explicitly defined in terms of “a first number of micro-projectors of the light field generator in vertical direction” and “a second number of micro-projectors of the light field generator in horizontal direction”. It is unclear if the expression “F#” is to be associated with a single micro-projector, as claimed, or a plural number of micro-projectors, as claimed. It appears that the intent may have been to limit the system or light field generator F# as corresponding to numbers NV and NH- and not that of “a micro-projector”. Additionally, the phrasing “the F-number is set to a value ranging from …” is unconventional for a static system lacking means for varying the f-number dynamically. The confusion regarding the metes and bounds of this lack indented clause of Claim 13 may stem from the claim explicitly defining the F# to be distinct values, both broad and narrow. The claim defines the F# to be (Px/f)NVNH and then limits a step of setting the F# to a value between one-half of that aforementioned value and double that aforementioned value. Lastly, there is no clear structure for performing the apparent function limiting the invention in this claim. There is neither a structural limitation on the light field generator itself nor an additional optical component transforming the F# of the system. A person having ordinary skill in the art would not understand the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. Claim 14 is rejected as indefinite for failing to cure the deficiencies of the base claim.
Claims 19 and 20 recite “an angle of the light beams of the light field signal generated by the light field generator be adjusted by rotating the light field generator”. Though there are clear grammatical errors in the claim construction, the language is further indefinite on account of being a method step written to further limit a claim drawn to an apparatus. The claim language is not a limitation on the light field generator structure nor an intended use of the light field generator, but a step of adjusting by rotation the light field generator. In light of the Specifications, the intent of the limitation cannot be determined. It is unclear if the limitation should be understood as limiting merely the light field generator as providing a relationship between the generator and the angle of light beams emitted therefrom or as limiting the system as capable of varying the angle of incidence between the light field generator and waveguide or another limitation on the system. Examination on the merits is otherwise preempted as there is no reasonable interpretation for the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. As noted above, the method step of adjusting the light field generator provides a method step for an element of the apparatus to which the claim is drawn and does not further limit the structure of the apparatus. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-12 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pat. No, 10,025,093 to Wall et al. (hereinafter Wall).
Regarding claim 1, Wall discloses a light field display system (e.g. Figs. 2A, 3A, 4, etc.), comprising: a light field generator (a scan beam projector 204, Figs. 2A, 3A, 4, etc.), configured to output a light field signal (display light into eye 214, Figs. 2A, 3A, 4, etc.) corresponding to a light field data array of a scene (“this portion of the light beam corresponds to one “virtual pixel” in the image projected by the scan beam projector 204”; col. 14, ln. 49-col. 15, ln. 41), wherein the light field signal comprises a set of light beams (Figs. 2A, 3A, 4, 5, 6A, 7A, etc.); and a waveguide (bulk substrate 106, Figs. 2A, 3A, 4, etc.) , configured to diffract (“input-coupler 112, the intermediate-component 114 and the output-coupler 116 can each be implemented as a diffraction grating”; col. 2-14) the set of light beams by a total internal reflection (“light corresponding to an image, which is coupled into the waveguide via the input-coupler 112, can travel through the waveguide from the input-coupler 112 to the output-coupler 114, by way of total internal refection (TIR)”, Fig. 4), wherein the waveguide maintains a structure of the light field signal when the light field signal leaves the waveguide (display into the eye 214, Figs. 2A, 3A, 4, etc.).
Regarding claim 2, Wall discloses the light field generator produces a collimated light field, wherein the collimated light field is related to the light beams originated from a plurality of pixels of the light field generator, and the light beams are parallel to each other (“imaging lens 308 is arranged to receive a display image from the EPE 306, to collimate and project the display image at a given defined field of view, and to form a pupil at the location of the input-couplers 112 of the waveguides 100”; col. 10, ll. 46-50).
Regarding claim 3, Wall discloses the light field signal comprises a plurality of sub light field signals, and the plurality of sub light field signals are related to the set of light beams (col. 14, ln. 49-col. 17, ln. 7).
Regarding claim 4, Wall discloses the light field display system further comprises an in-coupler, and the in-coupler serves as an interface between the light field generator and the waveguide (input-coupler 112, e.g. Figs. 2A, 3A, 4, etc.).
Regarding claim 5, Wall discloses the light field display system further comprises an out-coupler, and the out- coupler diffracts the light beams out of the waveguide (output-coupler 116, e.g. Figs. 2A, 3A, 4, etc.).
Regarding claim 6, Wall discloses the light field display system further comprises an optical relay module to adjust a magnification of the light field signal (“an exit pupil expander 306 optically coupled between the scan beam projector 204 and the waveguide 100. The exit pupil expander 306 may also be referred to as a numerical aperture (NA) convertor. There is an imaging lens 308 between the EPE 306 and waveguide 100”).
Regarding claim 7, Wall discloses the waveguide comprises a single substrate, and the single substrate transmits the light field signal (Fig. 4). Claim is not limited to only a single substrate.
Regarding claim 8, Wall discloses the single substrate is optimized to ensure the total internal reflection for a diffracted light field signal, and the diffracted light field signal is related to the light field signal (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 9, Wall discloses a plurality of waveguide substrates, and the plurality of waveguide substrates transmit the light field signal (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 10, Wall discloses the plurality of waveguide substrates are optimized to ensure the total internal reflection for a diffracted light field signal within each of the plurality of waveguide substrates, and the diffracted light field signal is related to the light field signal, wherein the light field signal comprises a chromatic light field signal (“an input-coupler 112B of the waveguide 100B can be configured to couple light (corresponding to the image) within a blue wavelength range into the waveguide 100B, and the output-coupler 116B of the waveguide 100B can be configured to couple light (corresponding to the image) within the blue wavelength range (which has travelled from the input-coupler 112B to the output-coupler 116B by way of TIR) out of the waveguide 100B”, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 11, Wall discloses a chief ray is related to the light beams, wherein the waveguide preserves a light field structure by directing the chief ray to have no intersection with the in-coupler after the chief ray is diffracted from a center of the in-coupler, wherein the chief ray propagates through the waveguide by the total internal reflection (Figs. 2A,. 3A, 4, etc.).
Regarding claim 12, Wall discloses a first length of the in-coupler is less than a second length of an exit pupil of the light field generator, wherein the exit pupil is located between the waveguide and the light field generator (Fig. 3A).
Regarding claim 15, Wall discloses the light field display system further comprises at least one of correction components, and the at least one of correction components is configured to adjust a depth range of the light field signal (“imaging lens 308 is arranged to receive a display image from the EPE 306, to collimate and project the display image at a given defined field of view”; col. 10, ll. 46-55).
Regarding claim 16, Wall discloses the at least one of correction components comprises a first optical element, the first optical element adjusts a light field emitted by the waveguide (lenses 1116 and 1118, Fig. 11; col. 19, ln. 41-col. 21, ln. 43).
Regarding claim 17, Wall discloses the at least one of correction components further comprises a second optical element, wherein the first optical element is positioned on a first side of the waveguide (lenses 1116 and 1118, Fig. 11; col. 19, ln. 41-col. 21, ln. 43).
Regarding claim 18, Wall discloses the second optical element is positioned on a second side of the waveguide, and the first side and the second side are opposite to each other (lenses 1116 and 1118, Fig. 11; col. 19, ln. 41-col. 21, ln. 43).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J STANFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3337. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-4PM PST M-F.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571)272-2333. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER STANFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights