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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of the amendment filed 5/20/2026. Claims 12-13, 17-19 are amended, claims 25-26 are canceled, and claims 1-24 and 27-29 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejection of Claim 12 and dependents thereof has been withdrawn due to amendment
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12-19 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 has been amended to recite “an image display apparatus with an extended depth of focus (DOF), the apparatus comprising: a display unit; an optical element unit …including a lens and a pinhole that has an opening portion (PDml); a main optics lens …wherein a convergence area of a virtual image is formed at a position spaced apart from the main optics lens … a control unit configured to control a liquid crystal element for electrically fine adjusting a size of the opening portion (PDml) of the pinhole, wherein the control unit applies an electrical signal to the liquid crystal element to adjust the size of the opening portion (PDml) of the pinhole so as to control a size of the convergence area of the virtual image determined according to a predetermined depth of focus (DOF) range of the virtual image and wherein the predetermined depth of focus (DOF) range includes a most near accommodation position (Dn) of an eye and a most far accommodation position (Df) of the eye… wherein the most near accommodation position and the most far accommodation position are closest and farthest distances, respectively, at which a user can focus without perceiving blurring of the virtual image, wherein the control unit adjusts the size of the convergence area, which is formed from an image point of the virtual image, at a position of a pupil of the eye so that a size of a near position image blur of the image point, which is formed on a retina, at the most near accommodation position (Dn) of the eye, is equal to a size of a far position image blur of the image point, which is formed on the retina, at the most far accommodation position (Df) of the eye, and wherein the convergence area of the virtual image is positioned at the pupil of the eye so that the user can view the virtual image input to the display”. In summary, the language from Line 13 to the end of Claim 12 does not clearly define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention in light of the Specifications. There are nested or contingent interpretations of phrases and clauses that are too entangled to simply address and so the subsequent discussion looks at some phrases and clauses in isolation in order to illuminate the degree to which there is no reasonable interpretation of the claimed invention.
The phrase a “depth of focus (DOF) range of the virtual image” would have been understood by an artisan in light of the Specifications to correspond to a range of positions within which a virtual image is positioned in order to be focused by the eye perceiving the displayed virtual image (e.g. [0067],[0069]). While related in the disclosure, the phrase “a depth of focus (DOF) range of the virtual image” is not commensurate in scope with a depth of focus range of the eye and is not commensurate in scope with a depth of focus range of the optical display system. An artisan would understand that the depth of focus range of the virtual image ought to be made to coincide with the depth of focus range of the eye as defined by the eye and the depth of focus range of the optical display system. As the claim recites “a predetermined depth of focus (DOF) range of the virtual image”, it is understood that the range of virtual image positions is not determined in situ in the context of the claimed invention. In Line 18 of Claim 12, “the predetermined depth of focus (DOF) range” is understood as having antecedence in “a predetermined depth of focus (DOF) range of the virtual image” and not a DOF range of the eye or the optical system. Further, Lines 18-22 define the DOF range of the virtual image to include “a most near accommodate position (Dn) of an eye and a most far accommodation position (Df) of the eye”. The language does not define the predetermine DOF range of the virtual image to be between Dn and Df, but rather to include Dn and Df. This necessarily means that he DOF of the virtual image is at least between Dn and Df and possibly beyond the Dn and Df positions.
Lines 20-22 define the recited accommodation positions as “closest and farthest distances … at which a user can focus without perceiving blurring of the virtual image”. From the Specifications, this language appears to have the intent of limiting the DOF range of the virtual image to be at least as wide as a position at which a first, far hypothetical virtual image (not the virtual image recited in the claim that corresponds to a size of the convergence area in Line 13-14) could be focused by an eye in a farthest-accommodation state and a second, near hypothetical virtual image could be focused by the same eye in a nearest-accommodation state. Examiner believes that the intent of the claim is to capture an actual virtual image in an actual virtual image plane but the virtual images corresponding to positions of farthest- and nearest-accommodation state are not actual virtual images. Lines 18-22 of Claim 12 should not reference, by antecedence, the “virtual image” of Lines 8 and 14-15 because the virtual image in these lines is an actual virtual image formed via the display, optical element unit (e.g. pinhole), and main optics lens whereas the “virtual image” of Line 22 serves only to define positions in space corresponding to eye accommodation states.
In lines 23-28, Claim 12 recites “the control unit adjusts the size of the convergence area, which is formed from an image point of the virtual image, at a position of a pupil of the eye so that a size of a near position image blur of the image point, which is formed on a retina, at the most near accommodation position (Dn) of the eye, is equal…”. Firstly, “the virtual image” lacks antecedent basis as there are three distinct virtual images previously recited in the claim: (1) an actual virtual image associated with a pinhole size and convergence area, (2) a virtual image corresponding to a farthest distance a user can focus, and (3) a virtual image corresponding to a nearest distance a user can focus. Secondly, the adjective or adverbial clause “at the most-near accommodation position (Dn) of the eye” is not clearly, grammatically linked to any particular recitation and the number of possible elements described by the clause provides indefinite, mutually exclusive interpretations of the metes and bounds. It is possible that “at the most near accommodation position (Dn) of the eye” modifies one of the following, at least: “an image point of the virtual image”, a position of a pupil of the eye”, “a size of a near position image blur”. None of these possibilities would be clear to an artisan in the context of the claimed invention. From the Specifications, referencing Figs. 2A-2B, there may be image blur from an image point of an actual virtual image formed by a single pinhole size and configuration of the optics otherwise. Image blur, in light of the Specifications, appears to be defined, at least in part, by the size of the pinhole, the position of the actual virtual image from the eye and the focal state of the eye. In light of the Specifications, a far focal state and a near focal state of the eye may cause image blur for a same pinhole size and virtual image location. A person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the claimed “convergence area” does not form image blur directly nor define the size of image blur. Most importantly, in light of the Specifications, there is no claimed element “at the most near accommodation position (Dn) of the eye”. It can be said that when the eye is in a most-near accommodation state, a hypothetical virtual image point at the position Dn (e.g. Fig. 2A) would be in focus on the retina. The claim does not capture this clearly. The image blur and corresponding size depicted in Fig. 2A is from an image point of a virtual image at Dbest---- focused by the eye in its most-near accommodation state. This is not recited in the claim. All of this is analogous to the issue with the recited “a size of a far position image blur of the image point, which is formed on the retina, at the most far accommodation position (Df) of the eye”.
Further, the claim requires the control unit to “adjust” the size of the convergence area so the near and far image blur sizes are equal. The metes and bounds of the claimed adjustment cannot be determined as it cannot be determined whether the limitations in Lines 23-28 require in situ measurements of the eye to which the actual virtual image is displayed or predetermined measurements of an eye model to which hypothetical virtual images are provided. It is acknowledged that the Specifications provides an eye tracking device capable of measuring a focal state of the eye to which an actual virtual image is displayed ([0025]). This in situ measuring of the focal state of the eye does not correspond to the claimed nearest and farthest accommodation states. So while a pinhole size would be understood to be adjusted according to a depth of focus range of an actual virtual image (Claim 12, Lines 12-15), for nearest and farthest image blur to be equal, the size of the pinhole and convergence area would be set. Otherwise, it could be clear to recite that the control unit adjusts the pinhole size to a best pinhole size under the image blur condition.
It is noted that the disclosure does not provide sufficient algorithmic specificity to dynamically set a pinhole size to a particular user of the display device.
Recitations of “the virtual image” in lines 29-30 lack antecedent basis in the same way as described above.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pat. 11079596 (previously cited), US 11386529, and WO 2018/076661 disclosure virtual image displays positioning the virtual image within a range of distances spanning a near-most and far-most accommodation range of the eye.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J STANFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3337. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-4PM PST M-F.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER STANFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights