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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 and 7-9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,019,797 B2.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Both the pending claims and the conflicting patent are directed to a retinal projection display. Therefore, the conflicting patent is directed to the same problem as the present application. Further, any differences between the present claims and the claims in the conflicting patent are obvious in view of the prior art as applied below. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the below prior art with any of the conflicting patents for implementation details (especially as the patent claims lack implementation details). Based on the findings herein, this is an example of “(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.” MPEP 2143.
Claim 1 of the current application and claims 1-2 and 7-8 of the 797’ patent teach a retinal projection display comprising the same components such as:
a scanning mirror,
a reflective surface wherein the reflective surface is larger than the visible light image, a visible light source,
a hardware computation module comprising a processor and memory, the hardware computation module configured to determine a gaze direction of the user based at least in part on the reflected light, wherein the hardware computation module is further configured to coordinate operation of the scanning mirror and the at least one visible light source for projecting the visible light image onto the reflective surface based on the gaze direction, wherein the visible light image is projected into a retina of the user,
determining a pupillary distance alignment, wherein the pupillary distance alignment identifies a viewable region of the reflective surface for a known gaze direction of the user.
Claims 2 and 7 of the current application teach similar limitations to claims 4 and 9 of the current application wherein determining a displacement between light sources is determined during a manufacturing calibration operation and stored in a memory unit.
Claims 1-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 7-8, 10-11, 14, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,524,070.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Both the pending claims and the conflicting patent are directed to a retinal projection display. Therefore, the conflicting patent is directed to the same problem as the present application. Further, any differences between the present claims and the claims in the conflicting patent are obvious in view of the prior art as applied below. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the below prior art with any of the conflicting patents for implementation details (especially as the patent claims lack implementation details). Based on the findings herein, this is an example of “(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.” MPEP 2143.
The limitations of claim 1 of the current application are found in claims 1 and 4 of the 070’ patent.
Claims 2 and 7 of the current application are identical to claims 7 and 19 of the 070’ patent.
Claims 3 and 8 of the current application are identical to claim 8 of the 070’ patent.
Claim 4 of the current application are identical to claim 10 of the 070’ patent.
Claim 5 of the current application are identical to claim 11 of the 070’ patent.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 and 7-8 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 allowance of these claims require applicant overcome the above double patenting rejections with the filing of a terminal disclaimer.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 2 and 7, the closest related art is Aleem et al. (US 20180149863 A1) in view of applicant IDS cited Xie et al. (US 20200183155 A1). Aleem and Xie do not teach the claims 2 or 7 limitations.
Claims 3 and 8 are objected to as dependent upon claim 2 and 7, respectively.
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 1 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aleem et al. (US 20180149863 A1) in view of applicant IDS cited Xie et al. (US 20200183155 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Aleem teaches a projection display system (Abstract, Fig. 4, scanning laser projector (SLP) heads-up display system and device) and method comprising:
at least one visible light source for projecting a visible light image (Fig. 2, [0047, 0050] laser module 211 that includes RGB laser diodes to scan visible light over a user’s eye 290 and produce display content base on modulation of the RGB laser diodes);
a scanning mirror having a field of view larger than the visible light image (Fig. 2, [0047], scan mirror 212, [0048], “scan mirror 212 of SLP 210 repeatedly scans over its entire range of orientations and effectively scans over the entire field of view of the display.” This teaches the field of view is larger than the visibly light image);
a reflective surface (Fig. 2, [0035] holographic optical element (HOE) 230 which comprises a mirror. Note the embodiment of fig. 3 the HOE 330 can be integrated with and eyeglass lens 360 which also provides a surface) on which the visible light image is projected at least partially towards an eye of a user (Fig. 2 and [0051] teach visible light 221 is redirected ore reflected towards a user’s eye 290), wherein the reflective surface is larger than the visible light image (Fig. 2, as can be seen in fig. 2, HOE 230 is larger than the visible light 221); and
a hardware computation module comprising a processor and a memory (Fig. 4, [0063] “Support frame 480 of WHUD 400 also carries a digital processor 460 communicatively coupled to SLP 410…and a memory 470”), the hardware computation module configured to determine a gaze direction of the user ([0029] “FIG. 1 is a flow-diagram showing a scanning laser-based method 100 of determining a gaze direction of an eye of a user in accordance with the present systems.” [0040] “At 107, the processor determines a region in a field of view of the eye of the user at which a gaze of the eye is directed”), the hardware computation module further configured to coordinate operation of scanning mirror and the at least one visible light source for projecting the visible light image onto the reflective surface based on the gaze direction (Figs. 1-3 describe this process. [0040] At 107, the processor determines a region in a field of view of the eye of the user at which a gaze of the eye is directed based on the orientation of the at least one scan mirror that corresponds to the at least one detected reflection, [0044], “eye tracking (i.e., gaze direction detection)”. [0050], “The intensity pattern/map detected by photodetector 250 depends on where eye 290 is looking. In this way, the same SLP 210 in WHUD 200 enables both i) image projection, and ii) the gaze direction and movements of eye 290 to be measured and tracked.”);
wherein a pupillary distance alignment is determined during a calibration operation for the user, wherein the pupillary distance alignment identifies a viewable region of the reflective surface for a known gaze direction of the user (See fig. 1, step 107 and [0040-0043], “"At 107, the processor determines a region in a field of view of the eye of the user at which a gaze of the eye is directed." Note, figs. 1-3 describe a process wherein a gaze direction of a user is determined by reflecting an image and light off a mirrored holographic optical element (HOE) 230 surface).
Aleem teaches his system, device, and method project and reflect images onto a user’s eye, and even teaches his system can be used for user authentication via retinal blood vessel recognition ([0005]). Aleem does not explicitly teach a retinal projection system wherein the visible light image is projected into a retina of the user.
Xie teaches a retinal projection display system wherein visible light image is projected into a retina of the user (Fig. 3-4, [0002, 0076-0077], retinal projection system which reflects or reproduces display light ray that is imaged on a retina after passing through a pupil of the eyeball).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Aleem with Xie such that the system is a retinal projection display system and Xie teaches retinal projection systems have a series of advantages such as no vision block, high light utilization, and a simple optical path (Xie, [0003]).
Regarding claim 4, Aleem teaches the reflective surface is at least partially transparent ([0015] teaches, “the wavelength-multiplexed holographic optical element is substantially transparent to environmental light.” Fig. 2, and [0051] teach the HOE transmits infrared light thereby making it partially transparent. Fig. 3 and [0054] teaches, “WHUD 300 includes a SLP 310 adapted to include an infrared laser diode (labeled as “IR” in FIG. 3) for eye tracking purposes and a transparent combiner comprising a wavelength-multiplexed HOE 330 integrated with (e.g., laminated or otherwise layered upon, or cast within) an eyeglass lens 360.” This embodiment teaches the reflective surface is at least partially transparent. [0070] teaches a transparent display).
Regarding claim 5, Aleem teaches the retinal projection display system of Claim 1, further comprising:
an eyeglasses frame configured to be worn by the user (Fig .3, [0054], an eyeglass lens 360. Fig. 4, WHUD 400); and
at least one lens mounted in the eyeglasses frame, where the reflective surface is positioned on at least a portion of the at least one lens (Fig. 3-4, [0054], “a transparent combiner comprising a wavelength-multiplexed HOE 330 integrated with (e.g., laminated or otherwise layered upon, or cast within) an eyeglass lens 360.”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN P BRITTINGHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7865. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 10 AM - 6 PM, EST.
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, Benjamin Lee can be reached at (571) 272-2963. 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.
/NATHAN P BRITTINGHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2629
