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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 11, 2026 has been entered.
This Office Action is also in response to applicant’s amendment filed on April 2, 2026, which has been entered into the file.
By this amendment, the applicant has amended claims 1, 9, 18 and has canceled claims 6, and 15.
Claims 1, 9 and 18 remain pending in this application.
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 1, 9 and 18 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.
Claims 1, 9 and 18 have amended to include the phrases “a first lens area and a second lens area, wherein the first lens area has a static optical power on an upper portion of the respective lens and a stronger switchable optical power on a lower portion of the respective lens”, and the amended phrase “the second lens area is smaller than the first lens area is configured to increase its optical power to enable more comfortable viewing”, that are not explicitly supported the specification of originally filed. As explicitly disclosed in the Figure 8F, which the applicant specifically referred to as the base for the amendment, the first and second lens does not have a first lens and second lens areas that the first lens area has both static upper portion and switchable power lower portion and a separate second lens area.
The claims are not fully supported by the specification of originally filed.
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 1, 9 and 18 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.
Claims 1, 9 and 18 have been amended to include the phrase “a stronger switchable optical power on a lower portion of the respective lens” and the phrase “the second lens area … is configured to increase its optical power” that are in direct contradiction of the phrase “the first lens has a nonuniform static optical power” and the phrase “second lens has a nonuniform static optical power” recited in earlier part of the claims. By definition, a static power means that the optical power is a constant optical power that is not changed while switchable optical power means the optical power is dynamically changed or with increase (or decrease) optical power. The scopes of the claims therefore are unclear and indefinite.
Furthermore, it is not clear if the lower portion of the first lens area has switchable optical power or the second lens area is “configured to increase its optical power”?
The amended phrase “the switchable second lens” recited in claims 1, 9 and 18 is confusing and indefinite since it lacks proper antecedent basis from earlier part of the claims.
The scopes of the claims are completely confusing and indefinite. For the purpose of examination, these phrases are being interpreted as the “first lens has a first lens area and a second lens area” wherein the first lens has a static power and the second lens area being smaller than the first lens area and has a stronger switchable optical power wherein the second lens area comprises a switchable Fresnel lens immersed in a switchable liquid crystal”.
Proper clarifications and corrections are required.
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 and 9 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.
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 USC 112, first and second paragraphs for the reasons set forth above. The claims therefore can only be examined in the broadest interpretation.
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 also 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 been amended to include the phrase “both the first lens and the second lens have a first lens area and a second lens area wherein the first lens area has a static optical power on an upper portion of the respective lens” and the phrase “the second lens area is smaller than the first lens area ad is configured to increase its optical power … wherein the switchable second lens comprises a Fresnel lens immersed in a switchable liquid crystal”.
Carmon et al teaches the lens has a first lens area (on the upper portion of the lens) and a second lens area which is a lower portion (103, Figures 4(a) and 4(b)) of the lens wherein the lower portion or the second lens area (103, Figures 4(a) and 4(b)) is smaller than the upper portion (101) or the first lens area.
Yan et al teaches that the first and second optical assemblies may comprise electrical adjustable optical components, (please see paragraph [0032]). But it does not teach explicitly that the electrical adjustable optical components are in the lower portion or the second lens area of the lens. Clarke et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a lens element (109, Figure 1) that is comprised of a first lens area and a second lens area that is in a lower portion of the lens that is comprised of an electro-active element (104, Figure 1) that has electrically switchable optical power. Clarke et al teaches that the electro-active element has a progressive power (103, please see paragraph [0051]) which means that the optical power is switchable and it is increase from no optical power to definite optical power. Clarke et al further teaches that the electro-active element comprises switchable Fresnel lens that is immersed in switchable liquid crystal, (please see paragraph [0053] and Figure 16).
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 a second lens area of electro-active element with switchable optical power for the benefit of allowing optical power may be electrically adjusted.
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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 USC 112, first and second paragraphs for the reasons set forth above. The claims therefore can only be examined in the broadest interpretation.
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 further includes 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 has been amended to include the phrase “both the first lens and the second lens have a first lens area and a second lens area wherein the first lens area has a static optical power on an upper portion of the respective lens” and the phrase “the second lens area is smaller than the first lens area ad is configured to increase its optical power … wherein the switchable second lens comprises a Fresnel lens immersed in a switchable liquid crystal”.
Carmon et al teaches the lens has a first lens area (on the upper portion of the lens) and a second lens area which is a lower portion (103, Figures 4(a) and 4(b)) of the lens wherein the lower portion or the second lens area (103, Figures 4(a) and 4(b)) is smaller than the upper portion (101) or the first lens area.
Yan et al teaches that the first and second optical assemblies may comprise electrical adjustable optical components, (please see paragraph [0032]). But it does not teach explicitly that the electrical adjustable optical components are in the lower portion or the second lens area of the lens. Clarke et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a lens element (109, Figure 1) that is comprised of a first lens area and a second lens area that is in a lower portion of the lens that is comprised of an electro-active element (104, Figure 1) that has electrically switchable optical power. Clarke et al teaches that the electro-active element has a progressive power (103, please see paragraph [0051]) which means that the optical power is switchable and it is increase from no optical power to definite optical power. Clarke et al further teaches that the electro-active element comprises switchable Fresnel lens that is immersed in switchable liquid crystal, (please see paragraph [0053] and Figure 16).
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 a second lens area of electro-active element with switchable optical power for the benefit of allowing optical power may be electrically adjusted.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 2, 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.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights