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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 2, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed February 2, 2026, with respect to claim interpretations under 112(f) have been fully considered and are persuasive in the following instances:
Regarding “display control electronics including control circuitry configured to control the optical light modulator to display image components at specific positions on the optical light modulator” in claim 1 – the examiner was persuaded that “display control electronics including control circuitry” covers a broad class of structures identified by their function that the term has a sufficiently definite meaning. Since the term, combined with a description of the function of the circuit, connotates sufficient structure to one of ordinary skill in the art. In this case, the examiner agrees that the limitation covers a broad class of structures eponymously capable of the claimed function amounts to basic knowledge for a person skilled in the art.
Regarding “illumination control electronics including driver circuitry configured to power specific point-lights of the pin-light array” in claim 1 – the examiner was persuaded that “illumination control electronics including control circuitry” covers a broad class of structures identified by their function that the term has a sufficiently definite meaning. Since the term, combined with a description of the function of the circuit, connotates sufficient structure to one of ordinary skill in the art. In this case, the examiner agrees that the limitation covers a broad class of structures eponymously capable of the claimed function amounts to basic knowledge for a person skilled in the art.
Regarding “an eye-tracking device configured to detect the orientation of a viewer's eye and provide information about the orientation of the viewer's eye” in claim 22 – the examiner was persuaded that “eye-tracking device” covers a broad class of structures identified by their function that the term has a sufficiently definite meaning. Since the term, combined with a description of the function of the circuit, connotates sufficient structure to one of ordinary skill in the art. In this case, the examiner agrees that the limitation covers a broad class of structures eponymously capable of the claimed function amounts to basic knowledge for a person skilled in the art.
Regarding “the display control electronics is configured to provide images in accordance with the detected orientation of the viewer's eye, such that the projected virtual light-field is projected within the eye box, in accordance with the viewer's eye orientation” in claim 22 – the examiner was persuaded that “display control electronics” covers a broad class of structures identified by their function that the term has a sufficiently definite meaning. Since the term, combined with a description of the function of the circuit, connotates sufficient structure to one of ordinary skill in the art. In this case, the examiner agrees that the limitation covers a broad class of structures eponymously capable of the claimed function amounts to basic knowledge for a person skilled in the art.
Applicant's arguments filed February 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument in regards to “a synchronization signal is transmitted between the display control electronics and illumination control electronics to control the arrangement of the active point lights and inactive point-lights in the pin-light array in synchronization with the position of the image component on the optical light modulator” that a “signal” is a definite, well-understood structural/physical phenomenon in electronics and a 112(f) interpretation is unnecessary/inappropriate, the examiner notes the following. The claimed signal, per se, is an ephemeral transitory form of signal transmission, such as a propagating electrical signal. A transitory signal, while physical and real, does not possess concrete structure that would qualify as a device or part under the definition of a machine, is not a tangible article or commodity under the definition of a manufacture (even though it is man-made and physical in that it exists in the real world and has tangible causes and effects), see MPEP 2106. Further, while “a synchronization signal” would be understood in the art to cover a broad class of transitory signals identified by its synchronizing function, e.g. a clock signal, it is unclear how such a signal controls the arrangement of the active point lights and inactive point-lights in the pin-light array, per se, and controls the position of the image component on the optical light modulator, per se. These controlling functions have been attributed to the display control electronics and illumination control electronics. While the 112(f) interpretation of this limitation is not made in this Office Action several other issues have been raised, as set forth below.
Regarding applicant’s argument in regards to “wherein the eye-tracking device is further configured to control the display control electronics to provide at least the subset of active point-lights to project the virtual light-field within the eye box in accordance with the viewer's eye orientation” in claim 23 that a 112(f) interpretation is unnecessary/inappropriate, the examiner notes the following. As set forth above, the examiner was persuaded that “eye-tracking device” covers a broad class of structures identified by their function that the term has a sufficiently definite meaning and amounts to basic knowledge to one skilled in the art. The functions understood to be covered by such a device would be tracking the gaze direction of an eye and providing information regarding said direction. Control of subsets of point light sources and control of an SLM are not part of the functions of an eye-tracking device, per se. While the 112(f) interpretation of this limitation is not made in this Office Action other issues have been raised, as set forth below.
Regarding applicant’s argument centered on Hua (and McGuire) fails to disclose “a deliberate time-varying selection of which point-lights are active vs. inactive and a specific coupling in which the synchronization signal determines which image component (at a particular position on the modulator) is illuminated by which specific point-light, with image components displayed sequentially in sync with that point-light selection, in order to steer/resize the exit pupil” the examiner is unpersuaded. Hua provides an exemplar of a micro display of an “ECX335A by Sony” on page 15 lines 19-21. The Sony ECX335A is an active matrix OLED1 (AMOLED). OLEDs emit light2. AMOLED incorporates individual switching of pixels on or off3. As set forth below, Hua anticipates the light from micro display passes through a spatial light modulator (e.g. see figure 4B and page 5 lines 9-16). Thus, Hua’s micro display followed by an SLM anticipates “a pin-light array generating an incident light-field illuminating an optical light modulator” and since the micro display is an AMOLED it inherently switches of pixels (pin-lights) on (active) or off (inactive) the limitation “the pin-light array comprises a plurality of active point-lights emitting an incident light-field pin-light and of inactive non-emitting point-lights” necessarily flows from an AMOLED. Regarding “illumination control electronics including driver circuitry configured to power specific point-lights of the pin-light array” – in addition to being basic knowledge to one skilled in the art as applicant has argued and examiner agreed with – in order to function4 it necessarily flows the disclosed AMOLED has an electronic controller to switch pixels on and off. The eponymous function of SLMs is to modulate light5. Regarding “display control electronics including control circuitry configured to control the optical light modulator to display image components at specific positions on the optical light modulator” – in addition to being basic knowledge to one skilled in the art as applicant has argued and examiner agreed with – Hua page 5 lines 9-13 and page 9 lines 17-20 specifically notes the SLM is a “programmable spatial light modulator” and page 9 lines 27-28 states: “The spatial light modulator 135 may be set to program and control the cone angle”. Therefore, while Hue does not explicitly state that there is “display control electronics including control circuitry” it necessarily flows that a programable SLM that changes cone angle steers/resizes the light. For the near-to-eye augmented reality device disclosed by Hua it necessarily flows that micro display and SLM are synchronized for the device to function. Prior art (e.g. Hua) is presumed to be operable (i.e. an AR display displaying images to the eye), see MPEP 2121. If the two elements were out of sync than the proper image would not be appropriately displayed. These features that necessarily flow, i.e. inherent, are part of the reading the prior art “as a whole” see MPEP 2141.02. As a whole, Hua discloses head-mounted light field display with integral imaging and relay group, e.g. see title. It is necessary/inherent that electrically addressed elements (e.g. AMOLED & SLM) that change/control the image displayed are synchronized.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4, 8-10, 15, 21-23 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 1 (and therefore its dependents), in part, claims a signal. Transitory forms of signal transmission (often referred to as "signals per se"), such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal or carrier wave. Even when a product has a physical or tangible form, it may not fall within a statutory category. For instance, a transitory signal, while physical and real, does not possess concrete structure that would qualify as a device or part under the definition of a machine, is not a tangible article or commodity under the definition of a manufacture (even though it is man-made and physical in that it exists in the real world and has tangible causes and effects), and is not composed of matter such that it would qualify as a composition of matter. Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1356-1357, 84 USPQ2d at 1501-03. As such, a transitory, propagating signal does not fall within any statutory category. Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d 1275, 1294, 112 USPQ2d 1120, 1133 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1356-1357, 84 USPQ2d at 1501-03. See MPEP 2106. This rejection could easily be obviated, as set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-4, 8-10, 15, 21-23 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claim 1 “wherein the synchronization signal controls which image component is illuminated on the optical light modulator and by which specific point-light of the pin-light array, so as to vary the position or change the size of the exit pupil” is not enabled by the specification. In the art “synchronization signal” would be understood to be a clock signal or a trigger signal (Wands factor D) that could be sent to two controllers to queue them to work in sync (Wands factor C). The claim is using the term “controls” to mean operate (Wands factor A), e.g. switch individual display light sources/pixels on/off and to direct an image with a modulator (Wands factor B). The specification paragraph [0075] uses substantially similar language colloquially to indicate the operation of the two controllers is synchronized by the signal. If one considers use of a clock (i.e. synchronization) signal to synchronize two controllers to be basic knowledge in the art, this would be enabled6. However, it does not disclose how a signal operates each of the individual point-lights and the modulator that redirects light (Wands factor F) and has no exemplar of such a signal (Wands factor G) and does not discuss a possible third controller that would generate a signal capable of superseding the control of the display and illumination controllers (Wands factors F & G). Further, varying the position or change the size of the exit pupil would necessarily be synchronized paragraphs [0076-77] indicate this is due to information from an eye tracker, which is not present in claim 1 (Wands factors A-B) and not a “synchronization signal,” per se. Considering all the evidence, as a whole, the examiner concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art would need to engage in undue experimentation to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure (Wands factor H), see MPEP 2164.01(a). This rejection could easily be obviated, as set forth below.
Claims 2-4, 8-10, 15, 21-23 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement, since they depend on claim 1 and therefore have the same deficiencies.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-4, 8-10, 15, 21-23 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1 “a synchronization signal is transmitted between the display control electronics and illumination control electronics to control the arrangement of the active point-lights and inactive point-lights in the pin-light array in synchronization with the position of the image component on the optical light modulator … wherein the synchronization signal controls which image component is illuminated on the optical light modulator and by which specific point-light of the pin-light array, so as to vary the position or change the size of the exit pupil” raises clarity issues. The claim establishes the modulator is controlled by “display control electronics” that is an element capable of controlling the modulator is part of basic knowledge to one skilled in the art as applicant has argued and examiner agreed with. The claim establishes the point-lights of the pin-light array are controlled by “illumination control electronics” that is an element capable of controlling an array of point lights is part of basic knowledge to one skilled in the art as applicant has argued and examiner agreed with. While “a synchronization signal” would be understood in the art to cover a broad class of transitory signals identified by its synchronizing function, e.g. a clock signal or a trigger signal, it is unclear how such a signal controls the arrangement of the active point lights and inactive point-lights in the pin-light array, per se, and controls the position of the image component on the optical light modulator, per se. It is unclear if the synchronization signal supersedes these controlling functions have been attributed to the display control electronics and illumination control electronics or if it is providing a synchronizing signal that the display and illumination control electronics receive to synchronize the image displayed to the used. The specification repeats this language and sheds no light on this issue. For purposes of examination the examiner interprets this limitation as the signal coordinates the timing of the two controllers. Further, for purposes of examination the examiner’s interpretation is considered to be part of the basic knowledge of one skilled in the art, see below for the case where it is not. Further, it is unclear where this “synchronization signal” is from. There is no element claimed that inherently generates a synchronization signal. To obviate the 101 rejection, the 112(a) and this rejection the examiner suggests and for purposes of examination will use: “wherein a synchronization means between the display control electronics and illumination control electronics that synchronizes the [[to]] control are capable of being controlled so as to vary the position or change the size of the exit pupil.”
Claims 2-4, 8-10, 15, 21-23 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite, since they depend on claim 1 and therefore have the same deficiencies.
Regarding claim 23 “wherein said plurality of active point-lights emitting an incident light-field pin-light form a subset of active point-lights … at least the subset of active point-lights” raises clarity issues. Claim 1 already contains the definition “wherein the active point-lights form an active subset”. It is unclear if applicant is introducing a new subset or if applicant is referring to the active subset formed from active point-lights introduced in claim 1 (assumed). The examiner suggests and for purposes of examination will use “active subset
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4, 8-9 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hua et al. international patent document WO2018/165117, of record, in view of McGuire Jr. US Patent Application Publication 2006/0119951, of record, with evidence of certain facts provided by Sony “ECX335AF-6” specification sheet, created 2016, Wikipedia webpage “OLED” as of 2018 and Wikipedia webpage “Spatial light modulator” as of 2018.
Regarding claim 1 Hua disclose a light-field mixed reality system to be worn by a viewer (page 4 lines 16-19 “view of a real world to the eyepiece optics for viewing by a user of the head-mounted display system” e.g. figures 7A-7B), comprising: a pin-light array generating an incident light-field (e.g. micro-|n| unit & figure 4B show an exemplar of said unit where the combination of the micro-display 134 and the pinhole array immediately adjacent would generate the claimed light-field particularly page 15 lines 19-21 provides an exemplar of a micro display of an “ECX335A by Sony” an AMOLED7 that incorporates individual switching of pixels on or off8) illuminating an optical light modulator (e.g. programable spatial light modulator/SLM 135); the optical light modulator being configured for modulating the incident light-field and generating a modulated virtual light-field (axiomatic); a combiner (e.g. bottom part 853 or surface S22-1) configured for reflecting the modulated virtual light-field and projecting a projected virtual light-field defining an eye box region along a projection axis (see figure 7A-B); and a lens (e.g. micro lens array S2 and/or lenses in relay group with VFE) with the function of a pin-light array reimaging element (axiomatic); wherein the projected virtual light-field further forms an exit pupil of the pin-light array within the eye box and a virtual image of the optical light modulator, along the projection axis (see figures 7A-B); the system configured for: forming the virtual image in front of the exit pupil, namely at a distance less than 15 cm from the exit pupil between the combiner and the exit pupil (see figures 7A-B and page 14 lines 19-23 it would be implicit that an image formed between the eye and the combiner in the mixed/augmented reality near-to-eye display seen in figures 7A-B would be less than 15 cm distant from the exit pupil), or forming the virtual image behind the exit pupil, namely away from the exit pupil in a direction opposed to the combiner; and wherein the combiner is further configured for transmitting natural light from the real world towards the eye box, such that both projected virtual light-field and natural light are projected, via the combiner, within the eye box (page 14 lines 26-27 “surface S22-1 may be coated with a beamsplitting coating if optical see-through capability is desired” see figure 7B) wherein the pin-light array (e.g. combination of micro-display 134 and the pinhole array immediately adjacent) comprises a plurality of active points lights (15 lines 19-21 provides an exemplar of a micro display of an “ECX335A by Sony” that is an AMOLED) emitting incident a light-field pin-light and of inactive non-emitting points lights (inherent that an AMOLED pixel array could have emitting and non-emitting portions); wherein the system further comprises display control electronics including circuitry configured to control the optical light modulator (inherent programable SLM 135 would have “display control electronics” for proper operation, further inter alia page 8 lines 27-28 notes 135 may be controlled by a program, which implies the image-formed of individual pixel is controlled) to display image components at specific positions on the optical light modulator (axiomatic9) wherein the system further comprises illumination control electronics including circuitry configured to power specific point-lights of the pin-light array (inherent that an AMOLED has each pixel controlled for proper operation); wherein the active point-lights form an active subset (this is a definition not a limit) and the inactive point-lights form an inactive subset (this is a definition not a limit), and wherein the point-lights of the pin-light array being in the active subset and in the inactive subset are varied in time (inherent for the AMOLED in the an augmented virtual reality HMD that displays 3D and changes cone angle); a synchronization means between the display control electronics and illumination control electronics that synchronizes the control of the active point-lights and inactive point-lights in the pin-light array with the position of the image component on the optical light modulator (inherent that an AMOLED pixel array would have each pixel control synchronized with the SLM for proper operation or its functional equivalent exist for proper operation); wherein the image components are displayed sequentially in sync with the active point-lights (axiomatic); and wherein the optical light modulator and the pin-light array are capable of10 being controlled so as to vary the position or change the size of the exit pupil (the disclosed augmented reality HMD is disclosed to be a 3D display that shows views at different depths, see page 4 lines 2-25, it is inherent that the images would shift position to avoid convergence issues, see page 3 lines 20-28 the cone angle change, see page 8 lines 27-28 is synonymous with a size change).
Hua does not disclose a collimator.
McGuire teaches a similar system (abstract) including point sources generating (e.g. figure 10 three LEDs 212 coupled to optical fibers 206) illuminating an optical light modulator (e.g. SLM 236); and further teaches using a collimator (e.g. collimating element 238), which is part of the optical train that forms a virtual image, for the purpose of countering underfilling (paragraph [0136]). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the system as disclosed by Hua to have a collimator as taught by McGuire for the purpose of countering underfilling.
Regarding claim 2 Hua as modified by McGuire discloses the system according to claim 1, as set forth above. Hua further discloses wherein the optical light modulator comprises a spatial light modulator (e.g. SLM 135).
Regarding claim 3 Hua as modified by McGuire discloses the system according to claim 1, as set forth above. Hua further discloses wherein said combiner (e.g. S22-1) comprises a semi-transparent first element (page 14 lines 26-27 “surface S22-1 may be coated with a beamsplitting coating”) including a first reflecting surface having a concave and ellipsoid shape (see figure 7A), such that the projected virtual light-field is reflected at one of the focal points (see figure 7A).
Regarding claim 4 Hua as modified by McGuire discloses the system according to claim 3 including a lens combining the functions of a collimator and a pin-light array reimaging element, as set forth above. Hua further discloses a beam splitter (page 14 lines 26-27 “surface S22-1 may be coated with a beamsplitting coating”) that determines, in combination with the spatial light modulator and the lens, the position of the virtual image (inherent for the system to operate).
Regarding claim 8 Hua as modified by McGuire discloses the system according to claim 3, as set forth above. Hua further discloses wherein the combiner further comprises a semi-transparent second element (e.g. surfaces S21 & S21’) having a substantially flat (see figures 7A-B) semi-transparent reflecting surface reflecting for the virtual light-field (page 14 lines 18-24 “the surface S21 allow the ray to reach the exit pupil” & “rays reflected by the Surface S21′ … satisfy the condition of total internal reflection”) towards the first reflecting surface (e.g. S22-1) of the first element.
Regarding claim 9 Hua as modified by McGuire discloses the system according to claim 8, as set forth above. Hua further discloses wherein the first element (e.g. S22-1) and the second element (e.g. S21 & S21’) transmit the natural light towards the viewer's eye (see figures 7A-B).
Regarding claim 21 Hua as modified by McGuire discloses the system according to claim 1, as set forth above. Hua further discloses wherein the image components corresponding to the projected virtual light-field generated by virtual object points placed along the projection axis generate a virtual correction light-field from a realistic scene corresponding to a virtual correction point in the region of the real world (e.g. vari-focal element/VFE is capable of such a function).
Claims 10, 22-23 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hua et al. international patent document WO2018/165117, of record, in view of McGuire Jr. US Patent Application Publication 2006/0119951, of record, and in further view of Topliss et al. US Patent Application Publication 2019/0285897, of record.
Regarding claim 10 Hua as modified by McGuire discloses the system according to claim 3, as set forth above. Hua and McGuire do not disclose or teach wherein the combiner comprises a holographic element configured in such a way that the diffraction angles of the virtual light-field are rejected during reflection on the first reflecting surface.
Topliss teaches a similar system (abstract e.g. figures 5-7) including a pin-light array (paragraph [0006] teaches the light engine composed of multiple independent point sources) a virtual image reflected to an eye box (abstract e.g. 560) by a combiner (abstract e.g. 550) with a concave reflector focusing display light to focal points (e.g. see figures 5 & 7) and transmitting natural light from the real world towards the eye box (abstract e.g. see figure 5); and further teaches the combiner comprises a holographic element (abstract “augmented reality headset may include a reflective holographic combiner”) configured in such a way that the diffraction angles of the virtual light-field are rejected during reflection on the first reflecting surface (since holographic combiner is configured to reflect the desired image light, it would inherently reject unwanted light propagating at different angles) for the purpose of allowing implementation on relatively flat lenses when compared to the curved ellipsoid mirrors making the headset less bulky, more comfortable to wear, and more normal looking, i.e. resulting in a system that looks like a relatively normal-looking pair of glasses (paragraph [0060]). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the system as disclosed by Hua as modified by McGuire to have the combiner comprises a holographic element configured in such a way that the diffraction angles of the virtual light-field are rejected during reflection on the first reflecting surface as taught by Topliss for the purpose of allowing implementation on relatively flat lenses when compared to the curved ellipsoid mirrors making the headset less bulky, more comfortable to wear, and more normal looking, i.e. resulting in a system that looks like a relatively normal-looking pair of glasses.
Regarding claims 22-23 and 26 Hua as modified by McGuire discloses the system according to claim 1 , as set forth above. Hua further disclose it is also a wearable device (title) comprising the light-field mixed reality system the light-field mixed reality system according to claim 1 (as set forth above) that is head mounted (title) comprising at least one lens (see figures 7A-B), and wherein the combiner (e.g. S22-1) is arranged on the one lens, the pin-light array and the optical light modulator are arranged near the temple (implicit given the invention is head-mounted, the positioning with respect to the eye in figures 7A-B and page 15 lines 2-4 notes “micro-InI unit and the vari-focal relay group to be mounted on the temple side of the user's head”), as required by claim 26.
Hua does not disclose it is further comprising an eye-tracking device configured to detect the orientation of a viewer's eye and provide information about the orientation of the viewer’s eye; wherein the display control electronics is configured to provide images in accordance with the detected orientation of the viewer's eye, such that the projected virtual light-field is projected within the eye box, in accordance with the viewer's eye detected orientation, as required in claim 22; and wherein the eye-tracking device is further configured to control the display control electronics to provide at least the active subset to project the virtual light-field within the eye box in accordance with the viewer's eye orientation, as recited in claim 23; and wherein the head-mounted device is in the form of eyeglasses with a temple with a hinge and the optical light modulator are arranged on the hinge or another portion of the temple; as recited in claim 26.
Topliss further teaches including a an eye-tracking device detecting information about the orientation of a viewer's eye (e.g. gaze tracking component 504), such that the projected virtual light-field is projected within the eye box, in accordance with the viewer's eye orientation (inter alia paragraph [0061] “system may selectively illuminate different eye box points according to the tracking information”), and wherein the eye-tracking device is further configured for spatially shifting at least a subset of the projected virtual light-field in the plane of the virtual image (inter alia paragraph [0061 & 0091] “system may selectively illuminate different eye box points according to the tracking information”), and wherein the eye-tracking device is further configured for shifting the virtual image of at least a subset of the projected virtual light-field along the projection axis (inter alia paragraph [0061 & 0091] “system may selectively illuminate different eye box points according to the tracking information”), for the purpose shifting the image projected to the eye as determined by the gaze tracking component (paragraph [0095]); and wherein the head-mounted device is in the form of eyeglasses with a temple (see figure 6) and the optical light modulator are arranged on a portion of the temple (see figure 6) resulting in a system that looks like a relatively normal-looking pair of glasses (paragraph [0060]). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the system as disclosed by Hua to have it further comprise an eye-tracking device providing information about the orientation of a viewer's eye and provide information about the orientation of the viewer’s eye, such that the projected virtual light-field is projected within the eye box, in accordance with the viewer's eye orientation, and wherein the eye-tracking device is further configured for spatially shifting at least a subset of the projected virtual light-field in the plane of the virtual image, and wherein the eye-tracking device is further configured for shifting the virtual image of at least a subset of the projected virtual light-field along the projection axis, where the head-mounted device is in the form of eyeglasses with a temple and the optical light modulator are arranged on a portion of the temple as taught by Topliss for the purpose of shifting the image projected to the eye as determined by the gaze tracking component resulting in a system that looks like a relatively normal-looking pair of glasses.
Topliss does not disclose a hinge.
The examiner takes Official Notice11 that eyewear with temples commonly have a hinge. Further, there are a limited number of options, i.e. the eyewear with temples has hinges or it does not have hinges. Thus, there are only two possibilities. It has been held that where there are only a finite number of predictable identifiable solutions, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try the known options within his or her technical grasp. See KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) and MPEP 2143. One would be motivated to have a hinge for the purpose of folding the eyewear into a smaller volume for storage. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the wearable device including a temple as disclosed by Hua to have a hinge for the purpose of folding the eyewear into a smaller volume for storage, and since there are only a finite number of predictable identifiable solutions, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try the known options within his or her technical grasp, and since eyewear with temples commonly have a hinge.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hua et al. international patent document WO2018/165117, of record, in view of McGuire Jr. US Patent Application Publication 2006/0119951, of record, and in further view of Rolf US Patent Application Publication 2016/0077336, of record.
Regarding claim 15 Hua as modified by McGuire discloses the system according to claim 1, as set forth above. Hua and McGuire do not disclose or teach wherein the combiner is configured for reflecting narrow spectral bands of the virtual light-field while transmitting all or most of the other visible wavelengths from the natural light.
Rolf teaches a similar system (abstract e.g. figure 1) including a display (e.g. 3) projecting light to a combiner (e.g. 4) with a concave reflector that reflects the light to the eye and also transmitting natural light from the real world towards the eye box (abstract); and further teaches the combiner is configured for reflecting narrow spectral bands of the virtual light-field (paragraph [0042 & 0046] discuss using dichroic or holographic reflectors as color selective reflectors) while transmitting all or most of the other visible wavelengths from the natural light (paragraph [0046] “the entire visible spectrum, such a mirror would have a very high degree of transmission and, together with the transmissive display, allow for an almost unobstructed view on the outside world”) for the purpose of having near 100% reflection of the display light while having very high degree of transmission, thereby allowing for an almost unobstructed view on the outside world (paragraph [0046]). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the system as disclosed by Hua to have the combiner is configured for reflecting narrow spectral bands of the virtual light-field while transmitting all or most of the other visible wavelengths from the natural light as taught by Rolf for the purpose of having near 100% reflection of the display light while having very high degree of transmission, thereby allowing for an almost unobstructed view on the outside world.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to George G King whose telephone number is (303)297-4273. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571) 272-2333. 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.
/George G. King/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 February 13, 2026
1 Evidenced by Sony “ECX335AF-6” specification sheet, page 1, first sentence of description.
2 Evidenced by Wikipedia webpage “OLED”, page 1, first sentence.
3 Evidenced by Wikipedia webpage “OLED”, page 1, second paragraph, last sentence.
4 Prior art presumed assumed operable/working, see MPEP 2121.
5 Evidenced by Wikipedia webpage “Spatial light modulator”, page 1, first sentence.
6 If one did not consider it to be basic knowledge this would not be enabled since there is no further direction (Wands factor F) or examples (Wands factor G) without undue experimentation to make the invention based on the content of the disclosure (Wands factor H), see MPEP 2164.01(a).
7 Evidenced by Sony “ECX335AF-6” specification sheet, page 1, first sentence of description.
8 Evidenced by Wikipedia webpage “OLED”, page 1, second paragraph, last sentence.
9 Evidenced by Wikipedia webpage “Spatial light modulator”, page 1, first sentence.
10 It has been held that the recitation that an element is "capable of" performing a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense; In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138. Also see Intel Corp. v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm’n, 946 F.2d 821, 832, 20 USPQ2d 1161, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 1991), MPEP 2114. IV and MPEP 2173.05(g).
11 Since applicant did not traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice the statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant did not traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice, see MPEP 2144.03 C.