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 11/06/2025 amended claims 26-41, 43, 45. Claims 26-45 are pending and rejected.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 26-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 26 (claims 38 and 45 use different claim language but essentially recite the same limitation/s) recite “at a first time, determine a first virtual distance of a first virtual object; select a first power state from a plurality of power states based on the first virtual distance, each power state defining a focus range having an upper and lower focal distance limit; control the projection system to focus at least a portion of the focused light according to the first power state to cause the first virtual object to be presented to at least one of the eyes by the waveguide system at a focal distance within the focus range of the first power state; at a second time, determine a second virtual distance of the first virtual object that is different from the first virtual distance; determine that the second virtual distance is within the focus range of the first power state and the focus range of the second power state and that a current power state should remain at the first power state rather than switch to the second power state based on the determination.” The specification as filed on 04/16/2024 does not disclose the above limitations. The specification discloses
Alternatively the first variable focus mechanism and/or the second variable focus mechanism may have a finite number of power states. In this way a control system is provided to ensure that the position of a common augmented reality image lies within the predetermined minimum and maximum values on either side of the binocular convergence distance, and to only adjust the focus in a variable focus mechanism when the image position no longer lies within the predetermined values. In other words a variable focus mechanism may not adjust its focus until the common augmented reality image is beyond the predetermined minimum or maximum value of the binocular convergence distance. The display system effectively maximises the use of the acceptable range (before the quality of an image is significantly impaired) on either side of the binocular convergence distance, which may reduce the frequency of focus adjustment in variable focus mechanisms when providing an augmented reality image. (Specification, p. 5, lines 11-22).
In addition, the Fig. 4a-4c disclose three power states and the three associated focus ranges (Specification, p. 11-12). The specification also discusses the selection of power state for convergence distance within the overlapping range between the power states.
It should be understood that as binocular convergence distance of a common image
decreases, the image focus range in which there is no significant impairment of image
quality also narrows in order for the the focal distance of an image to be within a tolerance of ±0.25 dioptres.
The examples provided in Figure 4a and 4b describe image focus ranges which overlap
between the first and second power states, which allow the control system to select a power state which may be more appropriate for a particular common augmented reality image (for example, a particular power state is selected in order to minimise the difference between the convergence distance and the focal distances). For example, if a common augmented reality image has a convergence distance of 2.5 metres, the control system would select the second power state to focus the image since the image convergence distance is 0.5 metres from the optimal convergence distance of the second power state (of two metres), as compared to being 1.5 metres away from the optimal convergence distance of the first power state (of four metres). (Specification, p. 12-13).
The above disclosure may but does not necessarily result in the above claimed limitations. There is no indication that the above limitations were meant to be part of the invention as the time of filing.
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 26-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patterson (US 20190129178 A1) in view of St. Hilaire (US 20180067318 A1) and in further view of Welch (US 20170276948 A1).
Regarding claims 26, 38 and 45, Patterson teaches a binocular augmented reality display system, a method for controlling the binocular augmented reality display system (Fig. 6, 10 and 13B; [0133], [0137], [0150]-[0157]), a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of the above system, cause the system to perform operations comprising: a display assembly to present virtual content to both eyes of a user, comprising: a projection system to project focused light, comprising: a first projector (520, 1008, 1508 for the left) with a first variable focus mechanism (1008, 1508 for the left) for focusing light from the first projector (520, 1008, 1508 for the left); and a second projector (520, 1008, 1508 for the right) with a second variable focus mechanism (1008, 1508) for focusing light from the first projector (520, 1008, 1508 for the left); a waveguide system (1800B) to receive the light and present the virtual content to the eyes. Patterson further teaches a control system to control the projection system to focus at least a portion of the focused light according to the current power state to cause the first virtual object to be presented to at least one of the eyes by the waveguide system (1800B) at a focal distance within the focus range of the current power state ([0139], [0140]-[0149]) where the current power state is selected from a plurality of power states ([0140]-[0149]).
Patterson does not explicitly teach the waveguide system (1800B) to receive the focused light.
St. Hilaire teaches the first and second variable focus mechanisms producing first and second focused lights which are coupled into the first and second waveguides ([0013], [0037], [0050], Claims 4, 9 and 14).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Patterson with St. Hilaire; because it allows thickness reduction of the display.
Neither Patterson nor Hilaire teaches a control system to: at a first time, determine a first virtual distance of a first virtual object; select a first power state from a plurality of power states based on the first virtual distance, each power state defining a focus range having an upper and lower focal distance limit; control the projection system to focus at least a portion of the focused light according to the first power state to cause the first virtual object to be presented to at least one of the eyes by the waveguide system at a focal distance within the focus range of the first power state; at a second time, determine a second virtual distance of the first virtual object that is different from the first virtual distance; determine that the second virtual distance is within the focus range of the first power state and the focus range of the second power state and that a current power state should remain at the first power state rather than switch to the second power state based on the determination.
Welch teaches the control system select, i.e., depth plane switching, a power state (focal state corresponding to a depth plane) from a plurality of power states (focal states corresponding to multiple depth planes; Fig. 11-15, 17, 18A, 18B; 3000, 3002, 240a-Nominal, 240b-Nominal; [0247]) based on the binocular convergence distance ([0327]), each power state defining a focus range having an upper and lower focal distance limit (3000a, 30001b, 240a-Distal, 240a-Proximal; 240b-Distal, 240b-Proximal), the focus range of each power state narrowing as the binocular convergence distance decreases and maintaining the upper and lower focal distance limits within ±0.25 dioptres (AVM; [0315], [0341], [0365]) of the binocular convergence distance (Fig. 11, 12, 17, 18A and 18B). Welch further teaches overlapping focus range (1812; Fig. 17 and 18B) and conditions for choosing the power state when the focus distance falls in the overlapping focus range (1812; [0335]-[0337], [0343], [0345]-[0351]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Patterson, and St. Hilaire with Welch; because it improves viewing experience.
Regarding claims 27 and 39, the combination of Patterson, St. Hilaire and Welch consequently results in the first virtual object is presented to a first eye of the user's eyes by controlling the first projector and the first variable focus mechanism; the control system is further configured to: determine a third virtual distance, different from the first virtual distance and the second virtual distance, of the first virtual object; determine that the third virtual distance is not within the focus range of the first power state and the focus range of the second power state; select a third power state from the plurality of power states based on the third virtual distance being within a focus range of the third power state; and controlling the first projector and the first variable focus mechanism and the second projector and the second variable focus mechanism to present the first virtual object at a focal distance within the focus range of the third power state, the focal distance corresponding to the third virtual distance ([0335]-[0337], [0343], [0345]-[0351] of Welch).
Regarding claims 28, 29, 40 and 41, the combination of Patterson, St. Hilaire and Welch consequently results in the controlling of the projection system to focus the at least a portion of the focused light according to the first power state comprises: presenting the first virtual object at the first/second virtual distance to a left eye of the user's eyes by: controlling the first projector (520, 1008, 1508 for the left) to display the first virtual object at a first position or a first updated position corresponding to a binocular convergence distance or an updated binocular convergence distance based on the first/second virtual distance; and controlling the first variable focus mechanism (1008, 1508 for the left) to focus the first virtual object according to the first power state; and presenting the first virtual object at the first/second virtual distance to a right eye of the user's eyes by: controlling the second projector (520, 1008, 1508 for the right) to display the first virtual object at a second position or a second updated position corresponding to the binocular convergence distance or the updated binocular convergence distance; and controlling the second variable focus mechanism (1008, 1508) to focus the first virtual object according to the first power state ([0140]-[0149]).
Regarding claims 30 and 42, the combination of Patterson, St. Hilaire and Welch consequently results in the focus range of each power state narrows as the first virtual distance decreases and maintains the upper and lower focal distance limits within ±0.25 dioptres of the first virtual distance ([0092] of Patterson; AVM; Fig. 11, 12, 18A and 18B, [0315], [0341], [0365] of Welch).
Regarding claims 31 and 33, the combination of Patterson, St. Hilaire and Welch explicitly teaches the focus ranges of at least the first and second power states of the plurality of power states overlap (1812; Fig. 17 and 18B of Welch) or do not overlap (Fig. 11, 12, and 18A; [0315], [0341], [0365] of Welch).
Regarding claims 32 and 43, the combination of Patterson, St. Hilaire and Welch consequently results in each of the at least two power states (first and second power states) has its respective upper and lower focal distance limits on either side of a respective optimal convergence distance; and the selecting of the first power state from the plurality of power states based on the first virtual distance comprises: selecting between the at least two power states (first and second power states) based on a difference between the first virtual distance and the respective optimal convergence distances of each of the at least two power states (first and second power states; Fig. 11, 12, 18A and 18B, [0315], [0341], [0365] of Welch).
Regarding claims 34 and 44, the combination of Patterson, St. Hilaire and Welch consequently results in the selecting of the first power state from the plurality of power states based on the first virtual distance comprises: selecting a power state with a focus range encompassing the first virtual distance ([0140]-[0149] of Patterson; AVM; Fig. 11, 12, 18A and 18B, [0315], [0341], [0365] of Welch).
Regarding claim 35, the combination of Patterson, St. Hilaire and Welch consequently results in the focused light comprises first focused light focused by the first variable focus mechanism (1008, 1508 for the left of Patterson) and second focused light focused by the second variable focus mechanism (1008, 1508 of Patterson) and the waveguide system (1800B of Patterson) comprises: a first/second waveguide assembly (first and second correspond to left and right, respectively; Fig. 13A and 13B) comprising: a first/second waveguide (1012 of Patterson) having an external side and an internal side that is opposite the external side; a first/second convex lens (1804 of Patterson) having a first/second positive power arranged at the external side of the first/second waveguide (1012 of Patterson), the first/second convex lens (1804 of Patterson) having a first surface that is parallel to the external side of the first/second waveguide (1012 of Patterson) and a second surface that is convex, wherein the second surface that is convex is farther from the external side of the first/second waveguide (1012 of Patterson) than the first surface of the first/second convex lens (1804; Fig. 13B of Patterson); a first/second concave lens (1808 of Patterson) having a first/second negative power arranged at the internal side of the first/second waveguide (1012 of Patterson), the first/second concave lens (1808 of Patterson) having a first surface that is parallel to the internal side of the first/second waveguide (1012 of Patterson) and a second surface that is concave; a first/second input diffractive optical element (700/710/720; [0137] of Patterson; [0041] of Hilaire) configured to receive the first/second focused light and couple the first/second focused light into the first/second waveguide (1012 of Patterson), the first/second input diffractive optical element (700/710/720; [0137] of Patterson; [0041] of Hilaire) non-overlapping with the first/second convex lens (1804 of Patterson) and the first/second concave lens (1808; [0152], [0158] of Patterson); and a first/second output diffractive optical element (730/740/750 of Patterson) configured to couple light out of the first/second waveguide (1012 of Patterson) toward the first/second concave lens (1808 of Patterson), the first/second output diffractive optical element (730/740/750 of Patterson) overlapping with the first/second convex lens (1804 of Patterson) and the first/second concave lens (1808; [0152], [0158] of Patterson).
Patterson teaches, in Fig. 13A, the concave lens (1808) being a plano-concave lens ([0157]) without specifying whether the planar surface is closer or farther away from the waveguide (1012). In Fig. 13B, Patterson teaches the planar first surface of first/second concave lens (1808 of Patterson) being closer to the internal side of the first/second waveguide (1012 of Patterson) than the second concave surface of the first/second concave lens (1808 of Patterson).
Lacking criticality to the functioning of the invention, it would have been obvious to have the concave second surface of first/second concave lens (1808 of Patterson) being closer to the internal side of the first/second waveguide.
Regarding claim 36, the combination of Patterson, St. Hilaire and Welch consequently results in the first variable focus mechanism (1008, 1508 for the left of Patterson) is internal to the first projector (520, 1008, 1508 for the left of Patterson); and the second variable focus mechanism (1008, 1508 of Patterson) is internal to the second projector (520, 1008, 1508 for the right of Patterson; [0013], [0037], [0050], Claims 4, 9 and 14 of St. Hilaire).
Regarding claim 37, the combination of Patterson, St. Hilaire and Welch consequently results in the first variable focus mechanism (1008, 1508 for the left of Patterson) is positioned between the first projector (520, 1008, 1508 for the left of Patterson) and the first waveguide assembly (for the left); and the second variable focus mechanism (1008, 1508 of Patterson) is positioned between the second projector (520, 1008, 1508 for the right of Patterson) and the second waveguide assembly (for the right; [0013], [0037], [0050], Claims 4, 9 and 14 of St. Hilaire).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to all pending claims have been fully considered but are found not persuasive; hence the rejection/s of all pending claims are maintained.
Regarding the 112(a) rejections of claims 26, 38 and 45, applicant/s argue,
As shown in Figures 4a and 4b, the first and second focus ranges have overlapping portions and a virtual object 72 may be located within both the first and second focus ranges. Thus, the first power state may be used despite the virtual object 72 being moved to different virtual distances, such as from the first virtual distance to the second virtual distance as recited in amended claim 26, as long as the second virtual distance is still within the focus range of the first power state. (Remarks; p. 17).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claims 26, 38 and 45, nowhere in the specification or the drawing the claim limitations “at a first time, determine a first virtual distance of a first virtual object…” and “at a second time, determine a second virtual distance of the first virtual object that is different from the first virtual distance” are disclosed. As pointed out above, the relevant paragraphs that describe the Fig. 4a-4c only discuss the selection of power state for convergence distance within the overlapping range between the power states. No discussion of repeating the determination of virtual distance of a virtual object and taking action based on the results of the repeated determination of virtual distance of a virtual object.
Assuming arguendo that the relevant paragraphs can be interpreted to support the claim limitations at issue, it follows that the disclosure of Welch must also disclose the limitations at issue because Welch discloses the selection of power state for convergence distance within the overlapping range between the power states. Welch teaches overlapping focus range (1812; Fig. 17 and 18B) and conditions for choosing the power state when the focus distance falls in the overlapping focus range (1812; [0335]-[0337], [0343], [0345]-[0351]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 mailing 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