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 .
Remark
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed on January 27, 2026, which has been entered into the file.
By this amendment, the applicant has amended claims 1, 9 and 18 and has canceled claims 4, 12 and 20.
Claims 1, 6, 9, 15, and 18 remain pending in this application.
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 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, 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.
Claim(s) 1, 6 and 9, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication by Yan et al (US 2021/0048673 A1) in view of the patent issued to Carmon et al et al (PN. 9,618,774), US patent application publication by Taylor (US 2020/0374504 A1), US patent issued to Tabata (PN. 6,614,927) and US patent application publication by Clarke et al (US 2009/0096981 A1).
Claims 1, and 9, have been amended to necessitate the new grounds of rejection.
Yan et al teaches, with regard to claims 1 and 9, an eyewear (please see Figure 2) and a method of operating the eyewear display (with regard to claim 9), that is comprised of a frame, (please see Figure 2), an image processor (8, Figure 1) configured to process images and a first optical assembly and a second optical assembly (i.e. for right eye and left eye respectively), each coupled to the frame, (please see Figure 2) and configured to receive and pass a real world image (104) wherein each of the first and second optical assembly includes a first lens (100, Figure 3A, including 106) configured to direct the real world image toward a respective display configured to display image and a second lens (102, including 120) configured to compensated for the first lens and direct the real world image, (please see Figure 3A). Yan et al teaches that the optical power of the lenes (106) and (120) may be complementary to each other, (please see [0033]) which means the first lens and the second lens may be compensating to each other.
This reference has met all the limitations of the claims. Claims 1 and 9 further include the phrases “wherein the first and second optical assembly are configured to address vergence accommodation conflict (VAC)”. Yan et al does not teach such feature explicitly.
Yan et al also does not teach explicitly about the feature “both the first lens and the second lens have a center with an optical power that slants from a temporal region to a nasal region wherein each of the lenses have an optical power on an upper portion of the respective lens and a stronger optical power on a lower portion of the respective lens with a transition zone disposed between the two portions of the respective lens”. Claims 1 and 9 further includes the phrase “wherein the first lens has a nonuniform static optical power” and the phrase “the second lens a nonuniform static optical power”.
Carmon et al in the same field of endeavor also teaches a lens with nonuniform optical power wherein the lens has a static optical power on an upper portion of the lenes (101, Figures 4(a) or 4(b)) and a stronger static optical power on a lower portion (103) of the lens with a transition zone (113) disposed between the two portions of the lens. As shown in Figures 4(a) and 4(b) of Carmon et al the center of the optical power of the lens slants from a temporal region to a nasal region. With regard to the claims 1 and 9, the nonuniform optical power applied to the real word image and the displayed image via the first and second lenses would address the VAC.
It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Carmon et al to modify the first and second lenses of the optical assemblies also have nonuniform static optical power for the benefit of providing additional optical properties to the eyewear.
Claims 1 and 9 have been amended to include the phrase “first and second optical assembly have an accommodation plane at approximately 1.5 diopters and a convergent range of approximately 0.9 diopters to 2.0 diopters such that they are configured to address vergence-accommodation conflict (VAC)”.
Yan et al teaches that the optical power of the lenes (106) and (120) may be complementary to each other, (please see [0033]) which means the first lens and the second lens may be compensating to each other. These references however do not teach explicitly that the first optical assembly and the second optical assembly have an accommodation plane at approximately 1.5 diopters and a convergence range of approximately 0.9 diopters to 2.0 diopters”.
Taylor in the same field of endeavor teaches a three dimensional display system that is capable of a blended mode display that synthetic light field generated from a combination of at least two discrete depth planes, (0 and 1, please see Figures 10A, 11 and 12). Taylor teaches that the optical assembly of the display system have an accommodation plane at approximately 1.5 diopters for covering an entire 3D field of view from approximately a cut-off minimum distance of a viewer’s vision to approximately infinity as shown in Figure 10A. Furthermore, as taught by Tabata the corresponding part of convergence and accommodation is shown in Figure 3, specifically for an accommodation of 1.5 diopter the corresponding convergence is between 0.9 diopter and 2.0 diopter. It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Taylor and Tabata to make the first optical assembly and the second optical assembly to have an accommodation plane at approximately 1.5 diopters and a convergence range of approximately 0.9 diopter and 2.0 diopters for the benefit of covering an entire 3D view field between a depth plane near minimum distance of a viewer’s vision to a depth plane at infinity. These accommodation plane value and the convergence range would allow the VAC to be addressed.
Claims 1 and 9 have also been amended to include the phrase “wherein the first and second lenses have an area of electrically switchable optical power”.
Yan et al teaches that the first and second optical assemblies may comprise electrical adjustable optical components, (please see paragraph [0032]). Clarke et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a lens element (109, Figure 1) that is comprised an area of electro-active element (104, Figure 1) that has electrically switchable optical power. It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Clarke et al to modify the first and second optical assembly to include an area of electro-active element for the benefit of allowing optical power may be electrically adjusted.
With regard to claims 6 and 15, Carmon et al teaches that the lower portion (103, Figures 4(a) and 4(b)) may be smaller than the upper portion (101).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication by Yan et al (US 2021/0048673 A1) in view of the patent issued to Carmon et al (PN. 9,618,774) US patent application publication by Taylor (US 2020/0374504 A1), US patent issued to Tabata (PN. 6,614,927) and US patent application publication by Clarke et al (US 2009/0096981 A1).
Claim 18 has been amended to necessitate the new grounds of rejection.
Yan et al teaches a computer software code that serves as the non-transitory computer readable medium storing program code (please see paragraph [0017]) that when executed is to run a processing circuitry (12, Figure 1) of a circuitry component device (10, Figure 1) of an image processor of an eyewear. The eyewear has a frame (please see Figure 2), an image processor (8, Figure 1) configured to process images, a first optical assembly (for right eye) and a second optical assembly (for left eye), each coupled to the frame and configured to receive and pass a real-world image (104, Figures 3A and 3B), wherein each of the first and second optical assembly includes a first lens (106, Figure 2) configured to direct real world image toward a respective display (14) configured to display image and a second lens (120) configured to compensate for the first lens and direct the real world image. Yan et al teaches that the optical power of the lenes (106) and (120) may be complementary to each other, (please see [0033]) which means the first lens and the second lens may be compensating to each other.
Yan et al has met all the limitations of the claims.
Claim 18 includes the phrases “wherein the first and second optical assembly are configured to address vergence accommodation conflict (VAC)”. Yan et al however does not teach such feature explicitly.
Yan et al also does not teach explicitly about the feature “both the first lens and the second lens have a center with an optical power that slants from a temporal region to a nasal region wherein each of the lenses have an optical power on an upper portion of the respective lens and a stronger optical power on a lower portion of the respective lens with a transition zone disposed between the two portions of the respective lens”. Claim 18 further includes the phrase “wherein the first lens has a nonuniform static optical power” and the phrase “the second lens a nonuniform static optical power”.
Carmon et al in the same field of endeavor a lens has nonuniform static optical power on an upper portion of the lenes (101, Figures 4(a) or 4(b)) and a stronger static optical power on a lower portion (103) of the lens with a transition zone (113) disposed between the two portions of the lens. As shown in Figures 4(a) and 4(b) of Carmon et al the center of the optical power of the lens slants from a temporal region to a nasal region.
It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Carmon et al to modify the first and second lenses of the optical assemblies also have nonuniform static optical power for the benefit of providing additional optical properties to the eyewear.
Claim 18 further includes the phrase “the first assembly and the second assembly each receiving and passing the real-world image and the displayed images and the first lens and the second lens applying nonuniform optical power to the real-world image and the displayed image to address VAC”.
Yan et al in light of Carmon et al teaches that the first optical assembly and the second optical assembly each receives and passes the real-world image and the displayed image and the first lens and the second lens applying nonuniform optical power to the real-world image and the displayed image to address the VAC accordingly.
Claim 18 has been amended to include the phrase “first and second optical assembly have an accommodation plane at approximately 1.5 diopters and a convergent range of approximately 0.9 diopters to 2.0 diopters such that they are configured to address vergence-accommodation conflict (VAC)”.
Yan et al teaches that the optical power of the lenes (106) and (120) may be complementary to each other, (please see [0033]) which means the first lens and the second lens may be compensating to each other. These references however do not teach explicitly that the first optical assembly and the second optical assembly have an accommodation plane at approximately 1.5 diopters and a convergence range of approximately 0.9 diopters to 2.0 diopters”.
Taylor in the same field of endeavor teaches a three dimensional display system that is capable of a blended mode display that synthetic light field generated from a combination of at least two discrete depth planes, (0 and 1, please see Figures 10A, 11 and 12). Taylor teaches that the optical assembly of the display system have an accommodation plane at approximately 1.5 diopters for covering an entire 3D field of view from approximately a cut-off minimum distance of a viewer’s vision to approximately infinity as shown in Figure 10A. Furthermore, as taught by Tabata the corresponding part of convergence and accommodation is shown in Figure 3, specifically for an accommodation of 1.5 diopter the corresponding convergence is between 0.9 diopter and 2.0 diopter. It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Taylor and Tabata to make the first optical assembly and the second optical assembly to have an accommodation plane at approximately 1.5 diopters and a convergence range of approximately 0.9 diopter and 2.0 diopters for the benefit of covering an entire 3D view field between a depth plane near minimum distance of a viewer’s vision to a depth plane at infinity. These accommodation plane value and the convergence range would allow the VAC to be addressed.
Claim 18 also has been amended to include the phrase “wherein the first and second lenses have an area of electrically switchable optical power”.
Yan et al teaches that the first and second optical assemblies may comprise electrical adjustable optical components, (please see paragraph [0032]). Clarke et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a lens element (109, Figure 1) that is comprised an area of electro-active element (104, Figure 1) that has electrically switchable optical power. It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Clarke et al to modify the first and second optical assembly to include an area of electro-active element for the benefit of allowing optical power may be electrically adjusted.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 27, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The newly amended claims have been fully considered and they are rejected for the reasons set forth above.
Applicant’s arguments are mainly drawn to the newly amended feature that have been addressed in the reasons for rejection set forth above. Applicant being one skilled in the art must understand the claimed accommodation plane values and the convergence range of the optical assembly is known in the art to allow proper depth perception. Also electrical activate lens is also known in the art.
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 AUDREY Y CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2309. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 9:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Stephone B Allen can be reached on 571-272-2434. 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.
AUDREY Y. CHANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/AUDREY Y CHANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872