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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 11 and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Compact Light Field Augmented Reality Display with Eliminated Stray Light using Discrete Structures, Cheng Yao; Yue Liu; Dewen Cheng; Yongtian Wang, [Published in: 2019 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality Adjunct (ISMAR-Adjunct) Date of Conference: 10-18 October 2019; Date Added to IEEE Xplore: 09 January 2020; ISBN Information: DOI: 10.1109/ISMAR-Adjunct.2019.00-37; Publisher: IEEE; Conference Location: Beijing, China] in view of LIN et al. (US PUB. 2022/0207664)
Cheng discloses a system for correcting nonuniformity of a near-eye display (NED). Chen recognized that nonuniformity of NED is a result of stray light [An AR light field display scheme based on the principle of integral imaging, which realized an NED with a thin and light structure was once proposed. By analyzing the stray light, a tradeoff between the image quality and the stray light was made. However, due to the simple structure of the impurity elimination light, the impurity of the system still has a significant impact on the imaging quality. In this study, a more complex DLA display was designed, which effectively expands the FOV of the system and eliminates most of the stray light, thus improving the feasibility of this solution in wearable devices. In this study, a light-field near-eye AR display is introduced. It is composed of a discrete lenslet array (DLA) and a transparent microdisplay array, thus, it has a compact structure and the potential to be designed in the form of ordinary glasses. More importantly, it can provide corrected focus cue, which can effectively relieve the VAC and the VMC problems. An annular structure array is used to eliminate the stray light, so that the viewer can observe both the virtual image and the real world clearly.].
While Cheng discusses many schemes for addressing nonuniformity of near-eye display due to stray light, the discussion does not cover the details of the system claimed.
However, LIN et al. discloses a display system for correcting nonuniformity (Fig. 1B) comprising: obtaining a first plurality of images in response to a first test pattern being displayed by a display, each of the first plurality of images being obtained at a different location adjacent to an end of an optical path coupled to the display [0033, 0035-0037];
extracting a distinguishing frequency component among the first plurality of images, the distinguishing frequency component comprising frequency domain differences between images and being at least caused by stray light introduced by the optical path [0038-0039]; and determining a correction scheme for correcting nonuniformity of the display based on the distinguishing frequency component [see Figs. 4A and 4B].
Thus, given the teachings of LIN et al., a person having ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to modify Cheng with LIN et al. so as eliminate defects and improve the resolution of the displayed images.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-10 and 12-19 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GLENTON B BURGESS whose telephone number is (571)272-3949. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
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.
/GLENTON B BURGESS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2454
Prosecution Insights