13477646 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 19, 2018)

Ex Parte Robbins et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 19, 2018

13477646 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 19, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/477,646 05/22/2012 69316 7590 06/21/2018 MICROSOFT CORPORATION ONE MICROSOFT WAY REDMOND, WA 98052 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Steven John Robbins UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www .uspto.gov ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 335773-US-NP 9136 EXAMINER RAKOWSKI, CARA E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2872 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/21/2018 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): usdocket@microsoft.com chriochs@microsoft.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte STEVEN JOHN ROBBINS, IAN ANH NGUYEN, and DAVID D. BOHN Appeal2017-009752 Application 13/477,646 1 Technology Center 2800 Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC (Br. 3). Appeal2017-009752 Application 13/477 ,646 Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal ( emphasis added): 1. An imaging structure, comprising: a waveguide configured for viewing of an environment that is viewable, by a user, with the imaging structure, the waveguide further configured to transmit light of a virtual image that is generated by an image microdisplay to appear as part of the environment; and two or more focus elements configured to be: each electronically switchable as on to focus the light of the virtual image or off so as not to focus the light of the virtual image, the switching of the two or more focus elements effective to variably focus the light of the virtual image at a plurality of virtual image focus depths that approximately correlate to environment focus depths as perceived by the user, the environment focus depths determined by information from one or more sensors; and integrated within the waveguide or on a surface of the waveguide such that the environment is viewable by the user through the two or more focus elements. The Examiner maintains the following rejections: 2 (a) claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Bar-Zeev et al. (US 2012/0113092 Al, published May 10, 2012) ("Bar- Zeev"), with reference to Amitai (US 2008/0285140 Al, published Nov. 20, 2008) ("Amitai"), in view of Popovich (WO 2011/051660 Al, published May 5, 2011) ("Popovich"); and 2 We refer to the Specification, filed May 22, 2012 ("Spec."); Final Office Action, notice emailed Nov. 24, 2015 ("Final Act."), Appeal Brief, filed Aug. 11, 2016 ("Appeal Br."); and the Examiner's Answer, mailed Oct. 26, 2016 ("Ans."). 2 Appeal2017-009752 Application 13/477 ,646 (b) claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Spitzer (US 5,886,822, issued Mar. 23, 1999) ("Spitzer") in view of Popovich. ANALYSIS The Â§ 103 (a) rejection over Bar-Zeev, Amitai, and Popovich In the rejection of claim 1, the Examiner finds Bar-Zeev discloses a head mounted display device 2 including a waveguide 112 and two or more focus elements (i.e., lenses 122a-122d3 and the variable virtual focus adjuster 135) that are electronically switchable to focus light of a virtual image when on, do not focus the light of the virtual image when off, and provide a plurality of focus depths (Final Act. 3--4). The Examiner finds Bar-Zeev does not disclose focus elements that are integrated within a waveguide or on a surface of the waveguide so that an environment is viewable by a user through the focus elements, as recited in claim 1 (id. at 5). The Examiner further finds that Amitai, which is incorporated by reference by Bar-Zeev (Bar-Zeev ,r 61 ), discloses the coupling of input waves into a substrate via diffraction gratings (Final Act. 5). The Examiner further finds Popovich discloses a wearable display using switchable Bragg gratings ("SBGs") to direct the light of a virtual image to a user (id.). The Examiner finds the SBGs of Popovich are switchable between an on state that focuses the light of the virtual image and an off state that does not focus the light, with the SBGs and diffractive 3 The Examiner's citation of "lenses 122a through 122d" at page 3 of the Final Office Action appears to be a typographical error that was intended to reference lenses 122a-122d. See Bar-Zeev ,r 77. 3 Appeal2017-009752 Application 13/477 ,646 optical elements of Popovich having characteristics of a lens and the SBGs having a focal depth that can be at infinity or some closer distance (id. at 5- 6). The Examiner finds an environment would be viewable by a user through the SBGs of Popovich (id. at 6). The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to use the diffractive focusing device of Popovich in place of the lenses 122a-122d of Bar-Zeev but within the waveguide 112 of Bar-Zeev because Bar-Zeev teaches the use of multiple focusing elements for different focus depths and because the proposed modification would have provided a highly transparent display with clearly visible superimposed content via a compact arrangement having low power consumption, as disclosed by Popovich (id. at 6-7). Appellants' principal argument regarding claim 1 is the applied references do not suggest two or more focus elements that focus the light of a virtual image at a plurality of virtual image focus depths, wherein the focus elements are integrated within or on a surface of a waveguide such that an environment is viewable through the focus elements, as recited in claim 1 (Br. 13-16). Appellants further assert there would have been no suggestion to make the modification proposed by the Examiner, who relies upon impermissible hindsight in the rejection of claim 1 (id. at 16). Bar-Zeev discloses a head mounted display device 2. Bar-Zeev ,r 55. Figure 2A ofBar-Zeev is reproduced below. 4 Appeal2017-009752 Application 13/477 ,646 116 Â·t18 Â·-s ----.,------- . . --------140 ( 142 FIG.2A 1(}2 Figure 2A is a top view of a portion of a head mounted display unit. The head mounted display device 2 includes a frame including a temple 102 and a nose bridge 104 (id.). A microdisplay 120 projects an image through a lens system 122 onto a reflecting surface 124 that guides the light of the image into a lightguide optical element 112 (id. ,r 57). The lightguide optical element 112 transmits the light to the eye 140 of a user via selective reflecting surfaces 126 (id. ,r 61). The device 2 further includes a variable virtual focus adjuster 135 to control the displacement between the lens system 122 and the microdisplay 120, between the lens system 122 and the reflecting surface 124, or both the lens system 122 and the microdisplay 120 along an optical path 133 (id. ,r 59). Bar-Zeev states that different displacements correspond to different focal regions (id.). Bar-Zeev further 5 Appeal2017-009752 Application 13/477 ,646 discloses that the lens system 122 can be configured to switch between lenses 122a-122d having different focal lengths to adjust focal regions of a virtual image (id. ,r,r 76-77). However, as indicated by the Examiner (Final Act. 5), the variable virtual focus adjuster 135 and lens system 122 are not integrated within or on a surface of the waveguide 112 such that an environment is viewable through the variable virtual focus adjuster 135 or lens system 122, as recited in claim 1. Bar-Zeev states that the selective reflecting surfaces 126 can be arranged as described in Amitai (Bar-Zeev ,r 61 ). Figure 1 of Amitai is reproduced below. 2 ~14 Figure 1 depicts a side view of a folding optical device. Light from a display source 4 is coupled into the substrate 2 of Figure 1 via a reflecting surface 8 (Amitai ,r 25). Amitai discloses that input waves (i.e., light) could be coupled into a substrate by other means, such as diffraction gratings (id. ,r 45). Thus, Amitai demonstrates diffraction gratings could be used instead of Bar-Zeev's reflecting surface 124 to couple light from microdisplay 120 into the lightguide 112 and/or instead of Bar- 6 Appeal2017-009752 Application 13/477 ,646 Zeev's selective reflecting surfaces 126 to couple light out of the lightguide 112. Therefore, Bar-Zeev's and Amitai's disclosures demonstrate diffraction gratings can be used within Bar-Zeev's lightguide 112 but do not suggest using diffraction gratings instead of Bar-Zeev's lenses 122a-122d or variable virtual focus adjuster 135. Nor do Bar-Zeev or Amitai suggest using a plurality of diffraction gratings integrated within or on a surface of a lightguide to provide a plurality of virtual image focus depths, as recited in claim 1. Popovich discloses a wearable display using electrically switchable holographic optical elements (Popovich 1: 17-18). The optical elements may be SBGs that exhibit high refractive index modulation and efficiency for P- polarized light when off, causing light to diffract to a user's eye, and exhibit low refractive index modulation and efficiency when off, ceasing diffraction of light to a user's eye (id. at 3: 8-23, 4: 17-22, 16: 10-20). Popovich discloses that a virtual image produced in this manner may be focused at an infinite distance or at a closer distance (id. at 18: 1-13). However, Popovich's disclosure does not remedy the deficiencies of Bar-Zeev and Amitai with respect to claim 1. Although Popovich suggests the focal distance for SBGs may be tailored (i.e., adjusting the focus of a device to one distance or another), Popovich does not suggest using a plurality of such gratings to focus the light of a virtual image at a plurality of virtual image focus depths (i.e., using different devices having different focal depths), as recited in claim 1. Nor do the applied references suggest using such focus elements when they are integrated within or on a surface of a waveguide so that an environment is viewable through the focus elements, as recited in claim 1. The Examiner has not cited adequate evidence that a 7 Appeal2017-009752 Application 13/477 ,646 plurality of SBGs would function in the same way as Bar-Zeev's lens system 122 and/or variable virtual focus adjuster 135. Instead, it appears the Examiner's rejection relies upon impermissible hindsight (see KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,421 (2007) (citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 36 (1966) (warning against a "temptation to read into the prior art the teachings of the invention in issue"))). Independent claims 8 and 13 include limitations similar to those at issue for claim 1. Claims 2-7, 9-12, and 14--20 depend from claims 1, 8, and 13. For these reasons, we cannot sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 over Bar-Zeev, Amitai, and Popovich. The Â§ 103 (a) rejection over Spitzer and Popovich The Examiner finds Spitzer discloses an imaging structure including a main lens 300 and insert 301 that function as a waveguide and microdisplays that function as focus elements (Final Act. 19-20). The Examiner finds Spitzer does not disclose that the microdisplays are switchable on or off to focus the light of a virtual image and that the microdisplays are integrated within or on a surface of a waveguide such that an environment is viewable through the microdisplays, as recited in claim 1 (id. at 21 ). The Examiner makes findings regarding Popovich that are similar to those made in the rejection of claim 1 over Bar-Zeev, Amitai, and Popovich (id. at 21-22). The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to replace the multiple microdisplays of Spitzer with a single display and use multiple SBG panels disclosed by Popovich to provide a highly transparent display with clearly 8 Appeal2017-009752 Application 13/477 ,646 visible superimposed content via a compact arrangement having low power consumption, as disclosed by Popovich (id. at 22). As with the rejection over Bar-Zeev, Amitai, and Popovich, Appellants contend the applied references do not suggest two or more focus elements that focus the light of a virtual image at a plurality of virtual image focus depths, wherein the focus elements are integrated within or on a surface of a waveguide such that an environment is viewable through the focus elements, as recited in claim 1 (Br. 13-16). Spitzer discloses an eyeglass lens system (Spitzer 2:43-63). Figure 20 of Spitzer is reproduced below. t 1r-/940 840 ~~.Â·.Â·Â·.Â·.Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â· . 'f TI . c:::HH--- l U ~~ X t940-p 945 EYE OBJECTIVE AIR LENS IMAGES p:15 LE0-\-12m~,m-+---Y -Iâ€¢ I +--I --H'> ii ~~Â· FIG.20 Figure 20 depicts a system that provides multiple collimation distances The embodiment shown in Figure 20 of Spitzer includes multiple microdisplays 940 set at different distances from a lens so images can be provided at different focal distances (id. at 13:64--67, 14:1--4, 25--42). However, the Examiner does not find that the microdisplays 940 are integrated within or on a surface of a lightguide so an environment is viewable through them, as recited in claim 1. 4 4 The Examiner finds lenses disclosed by Spitzer can be integrated within Spitzer' s waveguide but not make the same finding for the microdisplays (Final Act. 20). 9 Appeal2017-009752 Application 13/477 ,646 Popovich's disclosure does not remedy the deficiencies of Spitzer. As discussed above with regard to the previous rejection, Popovich does not disclose or suggest using a plurality of SBGs to provide a plurality of virtual image focus depths, as recited in claim 1. Nor does Popovich suggest that SBGs would function in the same way as the plurality of Spitzer' s microdisplays 940 to produce different focal distances for a virtual image. As a result, it appears the Examiner relies upon impermissible hindsight to reject claim 1 over Spitzer and Popovich and has not set forth a prima facie case of obviousness. As noted above, independent claims 8 and 13 include limitations similar to those at issue for claim 1. Claims 2-7, 9-12, and 14--20 depend from claims 1, 8, and 13. For these reasons, we cannot sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 over Spitzer and Popovich. DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 is reversed. REVERSED 10