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 .
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.
Election/Restriction
Claims 17-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/15/2026.
Disposition of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 17-20 withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 1-16 are examined on the merits, for which the earliest support appears to be disclosed in parent application 16/175,924, e.g. Figs. 89 and 90, which do not appear supported by any of the provisional applications to which the ‘924 application claims priority. Accordingly, the effective filing date is considered as 10/31/2018.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 9, 11, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable over Tervo (US 20170357089 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Tervo discloses an optical structure (Fig. 6) for each eye of augmented reality eyewear (e.g. Title, Abstract) comprising:
a distal virtual image display (104b);
a proximal virtual image display (104a);
a distal internal-reflection waveguide (102b); and
a proximal internal-reflection waveguide (102a);
wherein light rays comprising a given pixel of an image from the distal virtual image display are reflected multiple times inside the distal internal-reflection waveguide before these light rays exit the distal internal-reflection waveguide (¶54, “In general, light corresponding to an image, which is coupled into the waveguide … travel through the waveguide … by way of total internal refection (TIR).”; Fig. 6 shows output coupled light exiting the distal waveguide 102b toward the eye);
wherein light rays comprising a given pixel of an image from the proximal virtual image display are reflected multiple times inside the proximal internal-reflection waveguide before these light rays exit the proximal internal- reflection waveguide (¶54, “In general, light corresponding to an image, which is coupled into the waveguide … travel through the waveguide … by way of total internal refection (TIR).”; Fig. 6 shows output coupled light exiting the proximal waveguide 102a toward the eye);
wherein light rays from the distal virtual image display and the proximal virtual image display create images of virtual objects in the person's field of view (see ¶1, “Such devices, which can be referred to as see-through, mixed reality display device systems, or as augmented reality (AR) systems, enable a user to see through the transparent or semi-transparent display of a device to view the surrounding environment, and also see images of virtual objects (e.g., text, graphics, video, etc.) that are generated for display to appear as a part of, and/or overlaid upon, the surrounding environment.”, see also ¶59, and Fig. 6 depicts the image light directed toward the eye); and
wherein light rays from the environment pass through the distal internal-reflection waveguide and/or the proximal internal- reflection waveguide to reach a person's eye (id.).
Regarding claim 11, Tervo discloses the optical structure in claim 9, and further discloses wherein the distal image display is to the right of the eye and the proximal image display is to the left of the eye, or vice versa (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 13, Tervo discloses the optical structure in claim 9, and further discloses wherein the distal waveguide and the proximal waveguide do not overlap (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 14, Tervo discloses the optical structure in claim 9, and further discloses wherein a waveguide is tapered (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 15, Tervo discloses the optical structure in claim 9, and further discloses wherein light beams from a distal image display and light beams from a proximal image display combine to show one or more virtual objects and/or scenes in the person's field of view (¶3, ¶29).
Regarding claim 16, Tervo discloses the optical structure in claim 9, and further discloses wherein light beams from a distal image display and light beams from a proximal image display show different virtual objects and/or scenes in the person's field of view (¶1, “Such devices, which can be referred to as see-through, mixed reality display device systems, or as augmented reality (AR) systems, enable a user to see through the transparent or semi-transparent display of a device to view the surrounding environment, and also see images of virtual objects (e.g., text, graphics, video, etc.) that are generated for display to appear as a part of, and/or overlaid upon, the surrounding environment.”).
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 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:
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.
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 1-3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osterhout (US 20160161747 A1) in view of Cheng (US 20160085074 A1).
Regarding claim 1 and 6, Osterhout teaches an optical structure (Fig. 7) for each eye of augmented reality eyewear (Fig. 2, ¶40) comprising:
a first image display (202) on a first side of a person's eye (812);
a first waveguide (tapered waveguide 818) which reflects light rays from the first image display (202) multiple times (as in Fig. 7) before those light rays are directed toward the eye (812); and wherein light rays from the environment pass through the first waveguide and/or the second waveguide to reach the eye (¶40, “… forms an overlaid image that is perceived by the person as a digitally augmented image of the environment, or augmented reality (“AR”).”, see the glasses of Fig. 2).
Osterhout does not explicitly show a second image display on a second side of the eye which is opposite the first side of the eye, wherein light rays from the first image display and light rays from the second image display show one or more virtual objects in the person's field of view; or a second waveguide which reflects light rays from the second image display multiple times before those light rays are directed toward the eye. In other words, Osterhout does not explicitly show delivering multiple images to the same eye using a second set of the components.
Cheng teaches a tiled head mounted display device having a plurality of similar sets of waveguides and microdisplays for delivering multiple images to the same eye (Fig. 5a, which clearly shows the multiple internal reflections in a tapering direction, and Figs. 11a, 13a, 13b, a more expansive tiling showing the multiple internal reflections for delivering multiple images to the eye using multiple waveguides and microdisplays, see ¶73 and ¶79, a plurality of mechanically coupled prisms for providing a plurality of image channels).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have followed the teachings of Cheng to improve the device of Osterhout in order to tile and thus expand the viewable image.
Regarding claim 2, the modified Osterhout teaches the optical structure in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the first side is above the eye and the second side is below the eye (e.g. Cheng, Fig. 11a, waveguide and displays above and below the eye).
Notwithstanding that the modified Osterhout discloses a variety of arrangements, mere changes in orientation that otherwise don’t affect the principle of operation are prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 VI.
Regarding claim 3, the modified Osterhout teaches the optical structure in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the first side is to the right of the eye and the second side is to the left of the eye (e.g. Cheng, Fig. 13b, waveguide and displays left and right of the eye).
Notwithstanding that the modified Osterhout discloses a variety of arrangements, mere changes in orientation that otherwise don’t affect the principle of operation are prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 VI.
Regarding claim 5, the modified Osterhout teaches the optical structure in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the first waveguide and the second waveguide do not overlap (Cheng, Figs. 5a, 11a, 13a, 13b).
Regarding claim 7 and 8, the modified Osterhout teaches the optical structure in claim 1, and further discloses wherein light beams from a first image display and light beams from a second image display combine to show one or more virtual objects and/or scenes in the person's field of view (see Cheng, ¶5, 3D movies, video games, and sports considered as one or more different virtual objects and/or scenes, ¶9, background of tiling to achieving broader field of view of the virtual image).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Osterhout as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tervo.
Regarding claim 4, the modified Osterhout teaches the optical structure in claim 1, but does not explicitly show wherein the first waveguide and the second waveguide at least partially overlap.
Tervo teaches that the waveguides can be duplicated into a stack such that they overlap (Fig. 7, ¶81).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have duplicated the parts of the modified Osterhout into an overlapping stack for the purpose of achieving a full color display by realizing red, green, and blue waveguide channels (¶83).
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tervo (US 20170357089 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Tervo discloses the optical structure in claim 9, but does not explicitly show wherein the distal image display is above the eye and the proximal image display is below the eye, or vice versa.
However, mere changes in orientation that otherwise don’t affect the principle of operation are prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2144.04 VI.
Regarding claim 12, Tervo discloses the optical structure in claim 9, but does not explicitly show wherein the distal waveguide and the proximal waveguide at least partially overlap.
However, in a different embodiment Tervo teaches that the waveguides can be duplicated into a stack such that they overlap (Fig. 7, ¶81).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have duplicated the parts of Tervo into an overlapping stack for the purpose of achieving a full color display by realizing red, green, and blue waveguide channels (¶83).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLLIN X BEATTY whose telephone number is (571)270-1255. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 10am - 6pm.
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, Thomas Pham can be reached on 5712723689. 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.
/COLLIN X BEATTY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872