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, 6, 7, 9-11, 15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Poulad (US 2020/0278544 A1).
Instant Claim 1: An artificial-reality headset, (“FIG. 1 illustrates an example head mounted display (HMD) device 100 implementing an example display alignment tracking and adjustment system 106.” (Poulad, paragraph 14) The head mounted display device 100 of Poulad corresponds to the artificial-reality headset of the claim.
“An increase in the distance between the user's eyes and imaging surfaces causes a corresponding decrease in the viewing region in space (also sometimes referred to as the “eye box”) within which the projected images (e.g., holograms) are visible.” (Poulad, paragraph 12) The head mounted display device 100 of Poulad projects holograms – a form of artificial reality.)
comprising: a first holographic element positionally fixed relative to a first light detector, wherein the first holographic element projects first focused light onto the first light detector; (“Light projected by the display assemblies 108 and 110 (fig 1) is coupled into and through one of the first waveguide combiner 116 and the second waveguide combiner 118, respectively, and after several reflections off interior surfaces, coupled back out of the waveguide combiners 116 and 118 and imaged in the direction of the user 114.” (Poulad, paragraph 15) The first display assembly 108 of Poulad corresponds to the first holographic element of the claim.)
“Although a portion of the first signal output by the display assembly 108 (fig 1) is coupled into the second waveguide combiner 118, another portion of this signal passes directly through the second waveguide combiner 118 (e.g., as shown by arrows in View B). This light is coupled into a first end 132 of the waveguide 130 and transmitted toward a display alignment sensing assembly 104 positioned in an output path of light projected by the second display assembly 110.” (Poulad, paragraph 18) The display alignment sensing assembly 104 of Poulad corresponds to the first light detector of the claim.)
a first display coupled to the first holographic element, wherein the first display causes display of a first image; (“Specifically, the HMD device 100 (fig 1) includes a projection controller 122 that generates control signals to operate a microdisplay (also herein referred to as a projector, not shown) within each of the first display assembly 108 and the second display assembly 110. Each microdisplay generates light that is collimated and angularly encoded such that the center of a pixel on the microdisplay equates to a specific angle in space.” (Poulad, paragraph 16) The microdisplay within the first display assembly 108 of Poulad corresponds to the first display of the claim.)
a second holographic element positionally fixed relative to a second light detector, wherein the second holographic element projects second focused light onto the second light detector; (“Light projected by the display assemblies 108 and 110 (fig 1) is coupled into and through one of the first waveguide combiner 116 and the second waveguide combiner 118, respectively, and after several reflections off interior surfaces, coupled back out of the waveguide combiners 116 and 118 and imaged in the direction of the user 114.” (Poulad, paragraph 15) The second display assembly 110 of Poulad corresponds to the second holographic element of the claim.)
“Although a portion of the first signal output by the display assembly 108 (fig 1) is coupled into the second waveguide combiner 118, another portion of this signal passes directly through the second waveguide combiner 118 (e.g., as shown by arrows in View B). This light is coupled into a first end 132 of the waveguide 130 and transmitted toward a display alignment sensing assembly 104 positioned in an output path of light projected by the second display assembly 110.” (Poulad, paragraph 18) The display alignment sensing assembly 104 of Poulad corresponds to the second light detector of the claim.)
a second display coupled to the second holographic element, wherein the second display causes display of a second image; (“Specifically, the HMD device 100 (fig 1) includes a projection controller 122 that generates control signals to operate a microdisplay (also herein referred to as a projector, not shown) within each of the first display assembly 108 and the second display assembly 110. Each microdisplay generates light that is collimated and angularly encoded such that the center of a pixel on the microdisplay equates to a specific angle in space.” (Poulad, paragraph 16) The microdisplay within the second display assembly 110 of Poulad corresponds to the second display of the claim.)
and at least one display engine configured to: receive respective calibration data from the first light detector and the second light detector; (“After the first signal and the second signal are combined within the display alignment sensing assembly 104 (fig 1), the optical sensor samples a portion of the combined signal and provides the sampled signal data to the display alignment tracker (DAT) 124 for analysis.” (Poulad, paragraph 17-20) The display alignment tracker 124 of Poulad corresponds to the display engine of the claim.)
determine, based on comparing the respective calibration data, a disparity between the first display and the second display; and in accordance with a determination that the disparity between the first display and the second display satisfies disparity correction criteria, generate an updated first image or updated second image based on the disparity between the first display and the second display. (“The DAT 124 (fig 1) compares the received combined signal to an expected signal to determine a differential between the first signal and the second signal (e.g., a detected misalignment). Based on this determined differential, the DAT 124 generates a rendering position adjustment instruction that is, in turn, provided to and executed by the projection controller 122 to adjust a rendering position of one or both of the projected signals, thereby improving signal alignment and clarity of projected images within a field of view of the user 114.” (Poulad, paragraph 17-20))
Instant Claim 6: The artificial-reality headset of claim 1, wherein the disparity is associated with mechanical, angular, or optical misalignment between the first display and the second display. (“In different implementations, the DAT 124 (fig 1) is capable of correcting signal misalignment due to a variety of causes. For example, misalignment between the first signal and the second signal may be caused by changes in temperature, humidity, or other environmental conditions, as well as by physical impacts to a device and physical degradation of device bonds or components.” (Poulad, paragraph 21) Physical impacts to the head mounted display device 100 of Poulad would cause mechanical, angular, or optical misalignment between the microdisplays.)
Instant Claim 7: The artificial-reality headset of claim 1, wherein each of the first light detector and the second light detector is a photodetector. (“Although a portion of the first signal output by the display assembly 108 (fig 1) is coupled into the second waveguide combiner 118, another portion of this signal passes directly through the second waveguide combiner 118 (e.g., as shown by arrows in View B). This light is coupled into a first end 132 of the waveguide 130 and transmitted toward a display alignment sensing assembly 104 positioned in an output path of light projected by the second display assembly 110.” (Poulad, paragraph 18) Since the display alignment sensing assembly 104 of Poulad receives light, the display alignment sensing assembly 104 may be referred to as a light detector or photodetector.)
Instant Claim 9: The artificial-reality headset of claim 1, wherein comparing the respective calibration data is based on prestored disparity calibration data. (“For example, adjustment operation 410 (fig 4) may determine a current temperature and/or time that the microdisplays have been powered on and, based on such parameters, retrieve a corresponding positioning adjustment from a calibration table created during a factory calibration.” (Poulad, paragraph 55))
Instant Claim 10: The artificial-reality headset of claim 1, wherein the disparity between the first display and the second display is associated with tip or tilt misalignment between the first display and the second display. (“In different implementations, the DAT 124 (fig 1) is capable of correcting signal misalignment due to a variety of causes. For example, misalignment between the first signal and the second signal may be caused by changes in temperature, humidity, or other environmental conditions, as well as by physical impacts to a device and physical degradation of device bonds or components.” (Poulad, paragraph 21) Physical impacts to the head mounted display device 100 of Poulad would cause tip or tilt misalignment between the microdisplays.)
Instant Claim 11: (Method claim 11 and apparatus claim 1 are related as apparatus and the method of using same, with each claimed element’s function corresponding to the claimed method step. Accordingly, claim 11 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to apparatus claim 1.)
Instant Claim 15: (Claim 15 is substantially identical to claim 6, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.)
Instant Claim 18: (Claim 18 is substantially identical to claim 9, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.)
Instant Claim 19: (Claim 19 is substantially identical to claim 10, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.)
Instant Claim 20: (claim 20 is substantially included within claim 11, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.)
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.
Claims 2-5, 12-14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poulad in view of Simpson (US 2018/0204382 A1).
Instant Claim 2: The artificial-reality headset of claim 1, further comprising: a first optical sensor configured to project first non-focused light onto the first holographic element; and a second optical sensor configured to project second non-focused light onto the second holographic element, wherein the first non-focused light and the second non-focused light are planar electromagnetic waves. (Poulad teaches the head mounted display device in accordance with claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose the external source of the light used within the head mounted display device. However, in the same field of endeavor, Simpson explicitly teaches the external source for images of virtual reality eyeglasses: “In another embodiment of the invention, reflective light and electromagnetic waves are projected from the CPU ball device onto the eyeglasses then from the eyeglasses through the aqueous humor lens and vitreous humor which then project onto the photo receptors of the retina.” (Simpson, paragraph 16) The CPU ball of Simpson corresponds to the first optical sensor and second optical sensor of the claim.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the head mounted display device as taught by Poulad, wherein the head mounted display device produces images from light; with the virtual reality eyeglasses as taught by Simpson, wherein the external source of the light is a CPU ball. “Implementations of various computer methods to couple a computerized ball device which acts as a mobile computing device to record the users environment and project light towards waveguide eyeglasses or contacts which then allows a user to view imbedded light structure holograms in the waveguide while viewing the actual world.” (Simpson, abstract)
Instant Claim 3: The artificial-reality headset of claim 2, wherein the first holographic element and the second holographic element are configured to transform the planar electromagnetic waves into the first focused light and the second focused light, respectively. (“Light projected by the display assemblies 108 and 110 (fig 1) is coupled into and through one of the first waveguide combiner 116 and the second waveguide combiner 118, respectively, and after several reflections off interior surfaces, coupled back out of the waveguide combiners 116 and 118 and imaged in the direction of the user 114.” (Poulad, paragraph 15) When Simpson is combined with Poulad, the display assemblies 108 and 110 of Poulad would receive light from the CPU ball of Simpson.)
Instant Claim 4: The artificial-reality headset of claim 3, wherein the disparity is associated with at least one of the first optical sensor and the second optical sensor. (“In different implementations, the DAT 124 (fig 1) is capable of correcting signal misalignment due to a variety of causes. For example, misalignment between the first signal and the second signal may be caused by changes in temperature, humidity, or other environmental conditions, as well as by physical impacts to a device and physical degradation of device bonds or components.” (Poulad, paragraph 21) In the Poulad/Simpson head mounted display device 100, severe temperature may obviously degrade the electromagnetic waves provided by the CPU ball.)
Instant Claim 5: The artificial-reality headset of claim 2, wherein the first optical sensor and the second optical sensor are positionally fixed relative to one another. (According to section 2144.04 of the MPEP, under the heading Duplication of Parts, in the case of In re Harza the courts ruled “Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.” Therefore, it would be obvious to incorporate a second CPU ball of Simpson into Poulad, wherein the two CPU balls are positionally fixed relative to one another.)
Instant Claim 12: (Claim 12 is substantially identical to claim 2, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.)
Instant Claim 13: (Claim 13 is substantially identical to claim 3, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.)
Instant Claim 14: (Claim 14 is substantially identical to claim 4, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.)
Instant Claim 17: (Claim 17 is substantially identical to claim 5, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.)
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poulad.
Instant Claim 8: The artificial-reality headset of claim 1, wherein the first light detector and the second light detector are positioned on a same rigid substrate at a fixed distance and positionally fixed relative to one another. (According to section 2144.04 of the MPEP, under the heading Duplication of Parts, in the case of In re Harza the courts ruled “Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.” Therefore, it would be obvious to incorporate a second display alignment sensing assembly 104 into Poulad, wherein the two display alignment sensing assemblies are positionally fixed relative to one another.)
Instant Claim 16: (Claim 16 is substantially identical to claim 8, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yaron Cohen whose telephone number is (571)270-7995. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM to 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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Temesghen Ghebretinsae can be reached at 5712723017. 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.
/YARON COHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2626