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 1-7, 10, 11, 16, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Amirparviz (US 8,582,209 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Amirparviz discloses an electronic device (Figs. 2-6), comprising:
a transparent substrate (column 3, line 56-62 “Curved optical surface 200 may be implemented as a transmissive/emissive surface (e.g., see FIGS. 3A, 3B) or transmissive/reflective surface (e.g., see FIGS. 4A, 4B, 4C) to implement the display piece of an HMD or HUD. By fabricating the substrate of curved optical surface 200 out of transparent or partially transparent materials, external light 215 is permitted to pass through the surface to reach eye 120”; column 4, lines 30-39 “curved optical structure 300 is partially or semi-transparent and substrate 305 is fabricated of a clear substrate material (e.g., polymer, glass, quartz, thermoplastic, etc.). The components of each sub-layer are made sufficiently small and the interstitial gaps are sufficiently large to result in a semi-transparent structure that passes external light 340. Substrate 305 maybe flexible and therefore conformable to a selected shape and curvature using an appropriate frame assembly. Alternatively, substrate 305 may be rigid and its fixed curvature imparted during fabrication”; also Fig. 4A “405”);
a light source module array (Figs 3A, 3B and column 4, line 11 “array of light emitting pixels 325”; also Fig. 4A “425”) provided on a first surface of the transparent substrate (see Fig. 3A, top surface of 305; see Fig. 4A top sure face 405) and having a plurality of light source modules arranged in a lattice structure (see Fig. 3B; also see Fig. 4C);
an optical array (Figs 3A, 3B and column 4, line 10 “array of microlenses 315”; also Fig. 4A “415”) provided on a second surface of the transparent substrate (see Fig. 3A, bottom surface of 305; also see Fig. 4A, bottom surface of 405) and having a plurality of optical elements arranged to correspond to a plurality of the light source modules, respectively (see Fig. 3B, column 4, lines 41-42 “each light emitting pixel 325 is aligned with a corresponding microlens 315”; and see Figs. 4A and 4C); and
an optical driving unit (Figs. 3A and 3B “330”; also Fig. 4A “430”) controlling the light source module array (column 4, lines 11-13 “sub-layer 330 including control circuitry for controlling light emitting pixels 325”),
wherein an external light is provided to a user through a space between a plurality of the light source modules and a space between a plurality of the optical elements (column 4, lines 33-36 “The components of each sub-layer are made sufficiently small and the interstitial gaps are sufficiently large to result in a semi-transparent structure that passes external light 340”) and
wherein a light beam according to an image generated by the optical driving unit is irradiated from the light source module array and provided to the user through the optical array (see Figs. 3A and 4A).
Regarding claim 2, the electronic device of claim 1, wherein an individual light source module of a plurality of the light source modules comprises an external light blocking member for blocking the external light from passing through the light source module and a light source device configured to irradiate the light beam (column 6, lines 23-51 “The array of scattering centers 425 is offset behind the array of microlenses 415. Each scattering center 425 is aligned with a corresponding microlens 415 and positioned substantially at the focal point of its associated microlens 415. Each opaque structure 435 is positioned behind a corresponding scattering center 425 and microlens 415. Collectively, a microlens, scattering center, and opaque structure are referred to herein as a pixel unit 440 of curved optical structure 400. Opaque structures 435 are positioned to block external light 340 from interfering with their associated pixel unit 440 … During operation, an image source 450 illuminates the backside of curved optical structure 400 facing eye 120 with a CGI 455. In one embodiment, CGI 455 is made up of collimated light rays. Microlenses 415 are large enough (e.g., relative to the wavelengths of CGI 455 such that the light rays pass through microlenses 415 without significant scattering. However, scattering centers 425 residing behind microlenses 415 are purposefully design small to cause scattering of the incident light rays of CGI 455. In one embodiment, scattering centers 425 are reflective regions being substantially spherical in shape. Thus, when the backside of curved optical structure 400 is illuminated by image source 450, scattering centers 425 appear to "glow" by scattering the incident light of CGI 455 in a variety of directions. Since the scattering centers 425 are positioned at the focal points of microlenses 415, this scattered and divergent light is re-collimated and emitted towards eye 120 as output light 450. Opaque structures 435 block a significant portion of external light 340 from reaching microlenses 415, thereby reducing washout of the CGI light”).
Regarding claim 3, the electronic device of claim 2, wherein the individual light source module further comprises a collimating lens for preventing the irradiated light beam from being dispersed and wherein the light source device is in contact with the transparent substrate with the collimating lens interposed therebetween (column 4 “Although each light emitting pixel 325 emits non-collimated, divergent light 345, its associated microlens 315 collimates divergent light 345, which is output from the associated microlens 315 as collimated output light 347”; column 6 “While each scattering center 425 generates non-collimated, divergent light 452, its associated microlens 415 re-collimates divergent light 452, which is output from the associated microlens 415 as collimated output light 450”).
Regarding claim 4, the electronic device of claim 3, wherein the external light blocking member (Fig. 4A “435”) has a cap shape (see 435 covers light and lens) covering the light source device and the collimating lens (see Fig. 4B).
Regarding claim 5, the electronic device of claim 4, wherein optical characteristics of the collimating lens are the same for all the light source modules (see Fig. 3A “315”; Fig 4A “415”).
Regarding claim 6, the electronic device of claim 3, wherein the transparent substrate (305, 405) is disposed such that the second surface (bottom surface of 305, 405) faces the user (Fig. 3C and Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 7, the electronic device of claim 6, wherein the optical element is a lens (315, 415) and wherein an optical characteristic of the lens is determined based on a position of the optical element (inherent to view images).
Regarding claim 10, the electronic device of claim 2, wherein the transparent substrate is disposed such that the first surface faces the user (see Figs. 3A and 4A).
Regarding claim 11, the electronic device of claim 10, wherein the optical element is a reflective lens and wherein an optical characteristic of the reflective lens is determined based on a position of the
optical element (column 3, lines 56-58 “reflective surface”).
Regarding claim 16, the electronic device of claim 1, further comprising:
a front frame having the transparent substrate disposed thereon (Fig. 6, the front frame 400 as shown in Fig. 6); and
a side frame having the optical driving unit disposed thereon (Fig. 6, the side frame 610 and 615 having 450).
Regarding claim 19, the electronic device of claim 2, wherein the light source device comprises a Liquid Crystal On Silicon (LCOS) device, a Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) device, an Organic Light Emitting Diode (OLED) device, a Digital Micromirror Device (DMD), a micro Light Emitting Diode (LED) device, and a Quantum Dot (QD) LED device (COLUMN 5, LINES 5-9 “ Sub-layer 320 may be implemented using a variety of different light emitting technologies integrated onto a transparent or semi-transparent substrate. For example, sub-layer 320 may be formed of a sheet of transparent organic light emitting diodes ("OLEDs"). Sub-layer 330 includes control circuitry for controlling light emitting pixels 325. For example, sub-layer 330 may be a transparent (or partially transparent) thin film transistor layer for active matrix addressing of light emitting pixels 325”).
Regarding claim 20, the electronic device of claim 16, wherein the electronic device is a wearable display (see Fig. 3C).
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.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amirparviz (US 8,582,209 B1) in view of Kanayama et al (US 2018/0245757 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Amirparviz discloses the claimed invention as set forth above except for wherein an interval between a plurality of the light source modules increases as it moves toward the outside from a center of the light source module array.
Kanayama discloses an interval between a plurality of the light source modules increases as it moves toward the outside from a center of the light source module array (see Fig. 6C and paras 49-52).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention before the effective filing date to make an interval between a plurality of the light source modules increases as it moves toward the outside from a center of the light source module array for the purpose of obtaining illumination uniformity, thermal management and heat dissipation and beam shaping and sidelobe reduction.
Regarding claim 13, in combination, the electronic device of claim 12, wherein the transparent substrate is planar or has a prescribed curvature (Amirparviz, see Fig. 3A and Fig. 4A).
Regarding claim 14, the electronic device of claim 13, wherein each of the optical elements is aligned to the light source module therefor in a radial direction toward the transparent substrate from a
pupil of the user (see Fig. 3A and 3B).
Claims 15, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amirparviz (US 8,582,209 B1) in view of Son et al (US 2017/0255011 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Amirparviz discloses the claimed invention as set forth above except for wherein the optical array comprises a Diffractive Optical Element (DOE) or a Holographic Optical Element (HOE).
Son discloses the optical array comprises a Diffractive Optical Element (DOE) or a Holographic Optical Element (HOE) (para 22).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention before the effective filing date to make the optical array comprises a Diffractive Optical Element (DOE) or a Holographic Optical Element (HOE) for the purpose of obtaining micro cavity energy localization and resonant trapping.
Regarding claim 17, in combination, the electronic device of claim 1, further comprising an image division circuit configured to divide the image generated by the optical driving unit and transmit the divided image to an individual light source module (Son, Figs. 3A, 3B and para 29).
Regarding claim 18, in combination, the electronic device of claim 1, wherein a scale of the lattice structure is determined based on at least one of a distance between the light source module array and a user pupil, a pupil size, or an optical wavelength band (Son, Fig. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 9 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
claims are allowable at least for the reason that the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest wherein the optical element is a pinhole formed in a layer polarized in a first direction as set forth in the claimed combination.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUNCHA P CHERRY whose telephone number is (571)272-2310. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 7am to 3:30pm.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached at (571) 270-1284. 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.
9/8/2026
/EUNCHA P CHERRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights