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 .
Status
The filing on 01/13/2026 and 01/02/2026 amended claims 24, 25, 39, 42 and cancelled claim 28. Claims 24-27 and 29-46 are pending. Claims 24-27, 29-36, and 38-46 are rejected. Claim 37 is objected.
Claim Rejections - AIA 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 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.
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.
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.
Claims 24-27, 29, 30, 32-34, and 38-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son (US 10345589 B1) in view of Fransson (US 20190025930 A1).
Regarding claims 24 and 42-44, Son teaches a method of producing a wearable device for a viewer and the wearable device (Fig. 1A-6), the wearable device comprising: a first view optical stack (200) comprising one or more optical elements (220 and/or 222) through which the viewer's first eye views one or more objects, in front of the wearable device, located at one or more distances from the viewer's first eye; a substrate (100 or 110, 220 and 224) in physical contact with an optical element (220 and/or 222) in the one or more optical elements (220 and/or 222) of the first view optical stack (200), the substrate’s optical refractive index matching the optical element’s refractive index; an embedded device (108 and/or 112, col. 2, lines 17-34) affixed to the substrate (100 or 110, 220 and 224), wherein the embedded device (108 and/or 112) is a non-mirror light blocking component; wherein the embedded device (108 and/or 112) is located in a spatial region that light rays from an object located along an expected view direction do not reach, wherein the expected view direction represents a straight line extending from the viewer's first eye to the embedded device (108 and/or 112; Fig. 1A, 1C, 3).
Son does not teach the substrate’s optical refractive index matching the optical element's refractive index to prevent optical refractive index changes between the substrate and the optical element.
Fransson teaches the substrate’s optical refractive index matching the optical element’s refractive index to prevent optical refractive index changes between the substrate (530) and the optical element (540; [0085]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Son with Fransson to have the substrate’s optical refractive index matching the optical element's refractive index to prevent optical refractive index changes between the substrate and the optical element; because it allows the layers to be “more reliably and completely cured and improves adhesion between the resin material of eyeglass lens and protective layer” (Fransson, [0085]).
Regarding claim 25, Son further teaches the substrate (100 or 110, 220 and 224) is in physical surface contact with the optical element (220 and/or 222) over a contact surface portion, and wherein a solid angle, as covered by the contact surface portion, of the viewer's first eye is inclusive of an expected view direction of the viewer's first eye (Fig. 1A-6).
Regarding claim 26, Son further teaches the expected view direction of the viewer's first eye is determined as an optical axis of the first view optical stack (200; Fig. 1C and 3).
Regarding claim 27, Son further teaches the embedded device (108 and/or 112) is located along the expected view direction (Fig. 1C and 3).
Regarding claim 29, Son further teaches the embedded device (108 and/or 112) comprises a plurality of subcomponents distributed at a plurality of different locations of the substrate (100 or 110, 220 and 224; Fig. 3, 4A and B).
Regarding claim 30, Son further teaches the first view optical stack (200) includes a light router (226/228) to bend incident light, depicting the one or more objects, away from the embedded device (108 and/or 112; Fig. 2C; col. 4, lines 59-62).
Regarding claim 32, Son further teaches the first view optical stack (200) further comprises a beam splitter (104) to redirect a part of light reflected off from the viewer's first eye toward the embedded device (108 and/or 112; Fig. 1A, 1C, 3, 5, and 6).
Regarding claim 33, Son further teaches the part of light reflected off from the viewer's first eye, as redirected toward the embedded device (108 and/or 112), is light invisible to the viewer (Fig. 1A, 1C, 3, 5, and 6).
Regarding claim 34, Son further teaches the part of light reflected off from the viewer's first eye, as redirected toward the embedded device (108 and/or 112), is originally emitted from the embedded device (108 and/or 112) to illuminate the viewer's first eye (Fig. 1A, 1C, 3, 5, and 6).
Regarding claim 38, Son further teaches the embedded device (108 and/or 112) comprises one or more of: electric components, mechanical components, optical components, non-homogeneous components, discrete components, components comprising opaque parts in visible light, cameras, image sensors, CMOS image sensors, non-image sensors, LED emitters, power components, piezoelectric elements, nanowire electric connectors, ITO films, switch elements, IC circuits, electromagnetic inductive components, photovoltaic components, battery components, or other components made of materials different from the substrate (col. 3, lines 22-35).
Regarding claim 39, Son further teaches the first view optical stack (200) comprises one or more optical elements (220 and/or 222) other than the first optical element (220 and/or 222).
Regarding claim 40, the combination of Son and Fransson consequently results in the substrate (100 or 110, 220 and 224 of Son) includes a gel portion that is to be cured before the wearable device is used in operation ([0085] of Fransson).
Regarding claim 41, Son further teaches the substrate (100 or 110, 220 and 224) is made of one or more of: PDMS materials or non-PDMS materials, and wherein the substrate (100 or 110, 220 and 224) is optically transparent at least in one range of visible light wavelengths to the human visual system (Fig. 1A-6).
Regarding claims 45 and 46, neither Son nor Fransson teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, storing software instructions, or a computing device comprising one or more processors and one or more storage media, storing a set of instructions, which when executed by one or more processors cause performance of the method recited in Claim 42.
Having a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, storing software instructions, which when executed by one or more processors cause performance of the method of claim 42 is a matter of common sense; hence it is prima facie obvious.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son in view of Fransson and in further view of Ofir (US 20190278086 A1).
Regarding claim 31, neither Son nor Fransson explicitly teaches the light router (226/228) comprises one or more of: Fresnel lenses, grating structures or light waveguides.
Ofir teaches the light router (82) comprises one or more of: Fresnel lenses (col. 4, lines 50-65).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Son and Fransson with Ofir; because it allows thinner profile for weight reduction.
Claims 24, 35, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erinjippurath (US 20150002374 A1) in view of Fransson.
Regarding claim 24, Erinjippurath teaches a wearable device (Fig. 1-23) for a viewer, the wearable device comprising: a first view optical stack (1706, 1708, 1710; Fig. 17 and 18) comprising one or more optical elements (1706, 1708, 1710) through which the viewer's first eye views one or more objects, in front of the wearable device, located at one or more distances from the viewer's first eye; a substrate (2202) in physical contact with an optical element (1706, 1708 or 1710) in the one or more optical elements (1706, 1708, 1710) of the first view optical stack (1706, 1708, 1710); an embedded device (2204, 2206, 2208, and/or 2210) affixed to the substrate (2202); wherein the embedded device (2204, 2206, 2208, and/or 2210) is a non-mirror light blocking component; wherein the embedded device (2204, 2206, 2208, and/or 2210) is located in a spatial region that light rays from an object located along an expected view direction do not reach, wherein the expected view direction represents a straight line extending from the viewer's first eye to the embedded device (2204, 2206, 2208, and/or 2210; Fig. 22A, 22B.
Erinjippurath does not teach the substrate’s optical refractive index matching the optical element's refractive index to prevent optical refractive index changes between the substrate and the optical element.
Fransson teaches the substrate’s optical refractive index matching the optical element’s refractive index to prevent optical refractive index changes between the substrate (530) and the optical element (540; [0085]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Erinjippurath with Fransson to have the substrate’s optical refractive index matching the optical element's refractive index to prevent optical refractive index changes between the substrate and the optical element; because it allows the layers to be “more reliably and completely cured and improves adhesion between the resin material of eyeglass lens and protective layer” (Fransson, [0085]).
Regarding claim 35, Erinjippurath further teaches the embedded device (2204, 2206, 2208, and/or 2210) comprises an adaptive optics actuator ([0091], [0094]-[0096]).
Regarding claim 36, Erinjippurath further teaches the adaptive optics actuator comprises one or more piezoelectric elements to change a focal length of liquid lens ([0091], [0094]-[0096]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 24 and 42 have been considered but are found not persuasive; hence the rejection/s of claims 24-27, 29, 30, 32-36, and 38-46.
Regarding claims 24-27, 29, 30, 32-36, and 38-46, with respect to Son/Erinjippurath in view of Fransson, applicant/s’ arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Allowance
Claim 37 is 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.
Regarding claim 37, the closest prior art references, Son, Erinjippurath, Ofir and Fransson, do not teach, by themselves or in combination with one another, “the embedded device comprises an eye tracker.” Furthermore, there is no teaching, suggestion or motivation in the prior art references to modify the references in such manner that results in the above claimed limitation/s; hence the invention as claimed by claim 37 is not obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAO-LUAN Q LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5362. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday; 9:00AM-5:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Minh-Toan Ton can be reached on (571) 272 230303. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
Or faxed to:
(571) 273-8300, (for formal communications intended for entry)
Or:
(571) 273-7490, (for informal or draft communications, please label “PROPOSED” or “DRAFT”)
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to:
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
/BAO-LUAN Q LE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882