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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitations uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“wherein the system further comprises display control electronics including control circuitry configured to produce, format and export an image signal that creates a sequence of image components on the optical light modulator, the image components being displayed at corresponding positions on the optical light modulator” in claim 1;
“wherein the system further comprises illumination control electronics including driver circuitry configured to produce, format and export an illumination signal that powers specific point-lights of the pin-light array in a specific time dependent fashion and causes a sequence of light emissions from point-lights in the pin-light array” in claim 1;
“wherein the display control electronics and the illumination control electronics are configured to operate in synchronization such that the sequence of image components is displayed sequentially in sync with active point-lights of the pin-light array” in claim 1; and
“wherein the display control electronics and the illumination control electronics are further configured such that a selected image component on the optical light modulator is illuminated by a selected specific point-light of the pin-light array, the active point-lights determining the directions of the projected rays, so as to vary the position or change the size of the exit pupil” in claim 1.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 23 is 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 23 “the active subset” has antecedent issues. It is unclear if the active subset is a new element or if it referring to a previously introduced element. Given the amendments to claims 1 and 23 the examiner suggests and for purposes of examination will use “wherein said plurality of active point-lights emitting an incident light-field pin-light form a subset of active point-lights; wherein the eye-tracking device is further configured to control the display control electronics to provide at least the of active point-lights to project the virtual light-field within the eye box in accordance with the viewer's eye orientation.”
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, of record, Wikipedia webpage “OLED” as of 2018, of record, and Wikipedia webpage “Spatial light modulator” as of 2018, of record.
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 AMOLED1 that incorporates individual switching of pixels on or off2) 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 (e.g. microdisplay S0 is described page 15 lines 19-23 as an OLED or an LCD with pixels) 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 control circuitry configured to produce, format and export an image signal that creates a sequence of image components on the optical light modulator (inherent programable SLM 135 would have generate an image signal that is appropriately formatted for the hardware to display 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 pixels- is/are controlled), the image components being displayed at corresponding positions on the optical light modulator (axiomatic3); wherein the system further comprises illumination control electronics including circuitry configured to produce, format and export an illumination signal that powers specific point-lights of the pin-light array in a specific time dependent fashion and causes a sequence of light emissions from point-lights in the pin-light array (inherent that an AMOLED has each pixel controlled, including powering on/off of individual point sources at the appropriate time for proper operation); wherein the display control electronics and the illumination control electronics are configured to operate in synchronization such that the sequence of image components is displayed sequentially in sync with active point-lights of the pin-light array (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); and wherein the display control electronics and the illumination control electronics are further configured such that a selected image component on the optical light modulator is illuminated by a selected specific point-light of the pin-light array (axiomatic that a display displays an image), the active point-lights determining the directions of the projected rays (geometrically inherent), 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. Regarding “wherein said plurality of active point-lights emitting an incident light-field pin-light form a subset of active point-lights” in claim 23 – this is a definition not a limit. 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 subset of active point-lights 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 Notice4 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed May 10, 2026 with respect to claim rejections under 101 and 112 have been fully considered and in combination with the amendments are persuasive. The claim rejections under 101 and 112 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed May 10, 2026 with respect to prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument that claim 1 “requires a specific control architecture”, the examiner is unpersuaded. The claim requires specific functions (discussed below) – it does not “requires a specific control architecture.” Further, it is unclear what “a specific control architecture” in the remarks covers, since this could be read as a chip architecture/electronic circuits or a control algorithm. Regardless, the specification does not enable either, since the written description repeats the limitations with no algorithm set forth and boxes 141, 142 & 146, arrows 143-145 and unlabeled arrow between boxes 141 and 146 in figure 14a do not enable “a specific control architecture.” This is, in general, interpreted as showing the functional interaction between generalized well known structures that amounts to basic knowledge for one skilled in the art.
Regarding applicant’s argument:
Hua does not disclose this sequence-based, controller-level mapping between image component selection and specific point-light selection. At most, the Office Action shows that Hua contains electronically controlled display elements. It does not show that Hua necessarily discloses the presently claimed coordinated control architecture.
The examiner is unpersuaded. The term “architecture” does not appear in the claims or the specification, making the arguments unclear. The examiner guesses that the functional interaction between various modules (e.g. display control electronics functionally interacting with the optical light modulator via a signal as part of an operational display) is what is meant. Each of points 1-4 on page 10 is addressed below.
Regarding point 1 that Hua (and/or McGuire) fails to disclose “the display control electronics produce an image signal that creates a sequence of image components on the optical light modulator”, the examiner is unpersuaded. Applicant has previously argued that "display control electronics including control circuitry" connotates sufficient structure to one of ordinary skill in the art and structures eponymously capable of the claimed function amounts to basic knowledge for a person skilled in the art. The current claims have switch from the control electronic controlling a modulator to having it “produce, format and export an image signal that creates a sequence of image components on the optical light modulator”. After reviewing the specification the examiner contends control electronics that controls modulators in displays inherently generate control signals that are sent to said controlled modulator. The examiner further contend that said signal would be of an appropriate “format” so that said modulator operate correctly (e.g. is a voltage signal is required that controller would not send a current signal). In this case, it would be inherent for programable SLM 135 would have generate an image signal that is appropriately formatted for the hardware to display 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 pixels- is/are controlled, as set forth above.
Regarding point 2 that Hua (and/or McGuire) fails to disclose “the illumination control electronics produce an illumination signal that causes a sequence of light emissions from point-lights in the pin-light array”, the examiner is unpersuaded. Applicant has previously argued that " illumination control electronics including driver circuitry" connotates sufficient structure to one of ordinary skill in the art and structures eponymously capable of the claimed function amounts to basic knowledge for a person skilled in the art. The current claims have switch from the driving electronic a pin-light arrays to having it “produce, format and export an illumination signal that powers specific point-lights of the pin-light array in a specific time dependent fashion and causes a sequence of light emissions from point-lights in the pin-light array”. After reviewing the specification the examiner contends driving electronics that controls pin-light arrays in displays inherently generate drive signals that are sent to said pin-light arrays. The examiner further contend that said signal would be of an appropriate “format” so that said pin-lights operate correctly (e.g. is a voltage signal is required that driver would not send a current signal). In this case, it would be inherent that an AMOLED has each pixel controlled, including powering on/off of individual point sources at the appropriate time for proper operation, as set forth above.
Regarding point 3 that Hua (and/or McGuire) fails to disclose “the image components are displayed at corresponding positions on the optical light modulator”, the examiner is unpersuaded. This is axiomatic, i.e. this is what a modulator in a display does to display an image. Prior art presumed assumed operable. When the reference relied on expressly anticipates or makes obvious all of the elements of the claimed invention, the reference is presumed to be operable. Once such a reference is found, the burden is on applicant to rebut the presumption of operability. In re Sasse, 629 F.2d 675, 207 USPQ 107 (CCPA 1980. Also see In re Antor Media Corp., 689 F.3d 1282, 103 USPQ2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 2012). MPEP 2121.
Regarding point 4 that Hua (and/or McGuire) fails to disclose “the two sets of electronics are configured so that a selected image component is illuminated by a selected specific point-light to vary the position or change the size of the exit pupil” the examiner is unpersuaded. As noted above, it is axiomatic that a display displays an image and that prior art presumed assumed operable. It would be inherent for proper operation for the various hardware modules to function in a coordinated fashion to display an image. Regarding the display being capable of to varying the position or changing the size of the exit pupil – Hua discloses 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, which is synonymous with a size change.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
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 June 15, 2026
1 Evidenced by Sony “ECX335AF-6” specification sheet, page 1, first sentence of description.
2 Evidenced by Wikipedia webpage “OLED”, page 1, second paragraph, last sentence.
3 Evidenced by Wikipedia webpage “Spatial light modulator”, page 1, first sentence.
4 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.
Prosecution Insights