DETAILED ACTION
1. This Office Action is responsive to claims filed for No. 17/760,178 on February 19, 2026. Please note Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 13, 14 and 16 are pending and have been examined.
America Invents Acts
2. 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
3. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 19, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
6. Claims 1-11, 13, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Macnamara et al. ( US 2020/0073143 A1 ) in view of Jones et al. ( US 2020/0160491 A1 ) and Ishihara ( US 2013/0258490 A1 ).
Macnamara teaches in Claim 1:
A method for displaying a sharp image on a retina of an eye of the person ( [0391] discloses an autorefractor system which can image data to the user’s eye/retina ), the person having a prescription for the eye of the person ( [0082], [0126] discloses generating light field image data based on an optical prescription for the user ), the method adapted to see a see-through head mounted device ( [0054] discloses a head-mounted display with semi-transparent mirrors positioned in front of the user’s eyes ) and comprising:
obtaining at least three optical parameters relative to the prescription for the eye of the person, the three optical parameters being relative to a dioptric power, an astigmatism, and/or axis of the eye of the person, wherein the at least three optical parameters are specifically defined as at least a spherical power, a cylindrical power, and a cylindrical axis of the eye as used in an ophthalmic prescription ( [0082] discloses an ophthalmic prescription or other characteristic of the user’s eyes, and is able to correct for a user’s myopia, hyperopia, astigmatism, chromatic aberration, etc, (read as optical parameters). This can be input by the user or measured by the light field processor. Furthermore, Macnamara teaches in [0089] of measuring spherical power, cylindrical power and/or cylindrical power axis measurements. [0312] discloses aspects of diopter power, [0344] discloses aspects of astigmatisms, [0290] and [0295] discloses aspects of the appropriate axis. To clarify, these parameters are “relative” to the concept of spherical power, cylindrical power and power axis. Furthermore, these are for a user’s optical prescription for eyeglasses (read as an ophthalmic prescription) );
providing a plurality of initial sub-images, each initial sub-image corresponding to at least a part of the sharp image to be displayed ( [0085] discloses the light field image data can be in the form of one or more processed integral images, each consisting of a set of processed elemental images. [0391]+ disclose capture multiple images at subsequent times to determine a metric of the quality of image with particular vergence values. An iterative process then follows until the metric of quality is maximized or sufficient, as detailed below. Also, please note the combination for aspects of the sub-images as well );
for each sub-image, adapting the sub-image based on the at least three optical parameters and on a corresponding focused position of [an associated] light beam configured to carry the sub-image to form an adapted sub-image ( [0093], [0391] discloses correcting the captured light field (read as adapting) based on one or more characteristics of the user’s eyes and these changes are made in real-time. [0391]+ also disclose the process of iteratively updating until the user’s image viewing has a certain quality metric ); and
displaying each adapted sub-image carried by the associated light beam on the retina of the person ( [0391]+ discloses determining when the image data is best focused on the retina of the eye, using image processing algorithms, etc ); wherein
wherein obtaining at least three optical parameter relative to the prescription for the eye of the person comprises:
displaying at least two sharp images on a retina of the eye of the person, the at least two images being two-dimensional symbols and being carried by [two light beams] focused substantially in the plane of a pupil of the eye at least two different positions; adapting a parameter of the two-dimensional symbols in each image based on feedback of the person relative to a change of the parameter of the symbol in the image; and determining the at least three optical parameters of the person’s eye based on the adaption of the parameter of the symbol in each image. ( Applicant defines this aspect in Figure 5, [0114]-[0115] of the specification, focusing on different cases/images for correct for the user’s visual defects. [0116] discloses different case images for different visual defects and the user provides feedback. Please note Examiner cites this as basis to show how Macnamara (as well as the combination with Jones below) teaches of this concept. By the same logic, Macnamara teaches in Figure 8, [0094] of dynamic vision correction by initiating an eye-prescription configurator program. Figure 8 shows a plurality of user’s visual defects and the light field processor can generate and receive granular data, with such data being shown in Figure 9A/9B, [0096] (read as multiple/at least two sharp images). The images can be two-dimensional, as shown, and captured by the light field processor, [0084]. [0090] discloses feedback from the user through a user interface and having the option to adjust until arriving at a comfortable viewing prescription to resolve the defect (read as determining the at least one optical parameter). Furthermore, Figure 9 shows a tree(s), for example, which is the reference symbol(s). To clarify, both the present invention and Macnamara teach of iteratively displaying and capturing images and interacting with the user to resolve visual defects. For aspects of the plurality of light beams, etc, please note the combination below );
wherein the adaptation is performed iteratively until the two-dimensional symbols are perceived by the person as superimposed into a single sharp image ( As noted above and emphasized in [0393], the process can be performed iteratively until the metric is maximized or otherwise determined to be sufficient. That is, the light field processor can properly characterize a patient’s vision. [0150] and [0393] disclose selection of multiple vergence values to improve the image quality metric and again, this is performed iteratively until the metrics are clear, i.e. the image is sharp/sufficient ); but
Macnamara does not explicitly teach “providing a plurality of light beams configured to be focused substantially in a plane of a pupil of the eye at a plurality of corresponding different positions, each light beam being configured to carry an associated sub-image”. (emphasis on underlined aspects). Emphasis is also made on the “two light beams” making up the two-dimensional symbols, etc. Furthermore, Macnamara does not explicitly teach of “adapting a horizontal angular position of the sub-image carried by the associated light beam based on the at least one provided optical parameter and on the corresponding focused position of the associated light beam; and adapting a vertical angular position of the sub-image carried by the associated light beam based on the at least one provided optical parameter and on the corresponding focused position of the associated light beam”.
Macnamara teaches of using beams of light with varying degrees of vergence as a way of providing the image data. To clarify, [0391]+ disclose details on the iterative process of enhancing a user’s vision until it is sufficient. Please note the various vergence points, etc, which suggest of a plurality of sub-images, a plurality of light beams, etc. Furthermore, a “sub-image” is a broad term as it is clear that the multiple beams of light are required to output an image data to the user’s eyes.
To emphasize, in the same field of endeavor, eye imaging systems, Jones teaches to use an optical lens system to trace first and second images 700, 750, etc, ( Jones, [0093] ). Notably, as shown in Figure 7, the images are made up of a plurality of light rays/beams, etc, which together make up the overall image (read the individual rays/beams as sub-images). [0138] discloses using combiners to render process corrections before being displayed to the left and right eyes and the corrections are for addressing optical aberrations, [0002], similar to Macnamara. As combined, the multiple light rays/beams which make up the image can be applied to Macnamara’s light beam outputs, resulting in a plurality of sub-images. Furthermore, Figure 7, [0093] discloses multiple images with a plurality of light beams/rays which can converge on a user’s pupil, or eye in general. Note the different positions for the individual light beams/rays. As combined with Macnamara, who also teaches of a plurality of light beams, this can make up an entire image for the user to realize. To clarify, the combination teaches to correct/compensate (read as adapting) an image based on the user’s prescription or particular eye issues. Please note the two images are for the left and right eye of the user and these are corrected/compensated to reach a target.
Furthermore, as for the adapting of horizontal and vertical angular positions: Jones, Figure 7, [0093], [0095], discloses measurements in which the light beams/rays can be moved in both X (lateral) and Y (vertical directions). Furthermore, Jones teaches in [0167] of shifting pixels with the image to compensate for the aberrations, another examples of vertical and horizontal movement.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to implement the plurality of sub-images to make up an overall image, as taught by Jones, with the motivation that by controlling the individual rays, etc, optical aberrations can be addressed, ( Jones, [0002] ). Furthermore, Jones teaches in [0077] that this will provide an optimal visual stimulus to the user.
Macnamara and Jones do not explicitly teach “the light beams being focused at a maximum distance of 10 mm from the plane of the pupil of the eye ensuring sharp display of the at least two sharp images on the retina”.
However, exit pupil distance, i.e. the distance from the pupil to the image plane is a well known concept in the field. To emphasize, imaging apparatus, Ishihara teaches of an imaging optical system, ( Ishihara, Figure 1, [0473] ). Notably, the distance from the exit pupil to the image plane is set shorter than the distance from the aperture stop to the image plane and while these values are related, the values are less than the claimed 10 millimeters. Respectfully, this distance value is based on a number of factors and can be optimized as such, essentially rendering it a design choice issue.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filed date of the invention, to implement the exit pupil distance, as taught by Ishihara, with the motivation that by setting the appropriate distance, coma cab be appropriately corrected, ( Ishihara, [0474] ).
Macnamara and Jones teach in Claim 2:
The method according to claim 1, wherein adapting the sub-image comprises adapting the relative position of the sub-image in the sharp image to be displayed. ( Macnamara, [0391] discloses using the autorefractor system to focus light properly on the retina (read as adapting). Jones, [0077] discloses aberrations and other types of distortions are addressed to provide an optimal visual stimulus to the user )
Macnamara and Jones teach in Claim 4:
The method according to claim 1, further comprising for each light beam of the plurality of light beams determining the corresponding focused position in the plane of the pupil of the eye. ( Macnamara, [0293] discloses determining pupil aspects. Jones, [0091] discloses the image is provided to the user’s pupil )
Macnamara and Jones teach in Claim 5:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the corresponding focused positions of the plurality of light beams are regularly distant from each other in the plane of the pupil of the eye. ( Macnamara, Figure 18A shows the user’s eyes/pupil/retina and the even distance of the light beams/rays. Jones, teaches of a similar concept in Figure 7, [0093] )
Macnamara teaches in Claim 6:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the adapted sub-images are displayed sequentially on the retina of the person. ( Macnamara, [0291] discloses a sequence of point source images can be projected into the eye. Jones teaches in Figures 29/30, [0177], [0133] of a sequence of image files which are output to the user and also of sequential output )
Macnamara and Jones teach in Claim 7:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the adapted sub-images are displayed simultaneously on the retina of the person. ( Macnamara, [0242] discloses simultaneously presenting images to both eyes, with different characteristics. Jones teaches in Figure 7 of a plurality of images, each with a plurality of light beams/rays, which are output to the user’s eyes simultaneously, as is known )
Macnamara teaches in Claim 8:
The method according to claim 1, wherein a wavelength of at least one of the plurality of light beams differs from a wavelength of at least one other of the plurality of light beams. ( Macnamara, [0144] discloses the image data may be projected using light of different wavelengths, which is clear from the use of red, green and blue components, at different wavelengths from each other. Jones, [0034] teaches of a similar concept for red, green and blue wavelengths )
As per Claim 9:
Macnamara does not explicitly teach “wherein the wavelengths of the plurality of light beams are in a narrow band of wavelengths of 50 nm width.”
However, Macnamara and Jones both teach of projecting wavelengths of colors, such as red, green and blue, at known wavelengths. Different types of light, such as infrared, etc, operate at different wavelengths as well. Respectfully, one of ordinary skill in the art would have realized that depending on the type of light that is output, a different wavelength should be used. As such, it is a design choice issue as to the specific wavelength width of the light beams.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filed date of the invention, to implement the various wavelength widths, with the motivation that is a design choice issue and depending on the type of light that needs to be emitted, the corresponding wavelength can be output.
Macnamara and Jones teach in Claim 13:
A see-through head mounted device for displaying a sharp image on a retina of an eye of a person ( 0054] discloses a head-mounted display with semi-transparent mirrors positioned in front of the user’s eyes. [0391] discloses an autorefractor system which can image data to the user’s eye/retina ), the person having a prescription for the eye of the person ( [0082], [0126] discloses generating light field image data based on an optical prescription for the user ), the see-through head mounted device comprising:
circuitry configured to
obtain at least three optical parameters relative to the prescription for the eye of the person, the three optical parameters being relative to a dioptric power, an astigmatism, and/or an axis of the eye of the person, wherein the at least three optical parameters are specifically defined as at least a spherical power, a cylindrical power, and a cylindrical axis of the eye as used in an ophthalmic prescription ( [0082] discloses an ophthalmic prescription or other characteristic of the user’s eyes, and is able to correct for a user’s myopia, hyperopia, astigmatism, chromatic aberration, etc, (read as optical parameters). This can be input by the user or measured by the light field processor. Furthermore, Macnamara teaches in [0089] of measuring spherical power, cylindrical power and/or cylindrical power axis measurements. [0312] discloses aspects of diopter power, [0344] discloses aspects of astigmatisms, [0290 and [0295] discloses aspects of the appropriate axis. To clarify, these parameters are “relative” to the concept of spherical power, cylindrical power and power axis. Furthermore, these are for a user’s optical prescription for eyeglasses (read as an ophthalmic prescription) ),
provide a plurality of initial sub-images, each initial sub-image corresponding to at least a part of the sharp image to be displayed ( [0085] discloses the light field image data can be in the form of one or more processed integral images, each consisting of a set of processed elemental images. [0391]+ disclose capture multiple images at subsequent times to determine a metric of the quality of image with particular vergence values. An iterative process then follows until the metric of quality is maximized or sufficient, as detailed below. Also, please note the combination for aspects of the sub-images as well. Also, please note the combination for aspects of the sub-images as well ),
for each sub-image, adapt the sub-image based on the at least three provided optical parameters and on a corresponding focused position of an associated light beam configured to carry the sub-image to form an adapted sub-image ( [0093], [0391] discloses correcting the captured light field (read as adapting) based on one or more characteristics of the user’s eyes and these changes are made in real-time. [0391]+ also disclose the process of iteratively updating until the user’s image viewing has a certain quality metric ), and
display each adapted sub-image carried by the associated light beam on the retina of the person ( [0391] discloses determining when the image data is best focused on the retina of the eye, using image processing algorithms, etc );
wherein the circuitry is configured to obtain at least three optical parameters relative to the prescription for the eye of the person by:
displaying at least two sharp images on a retina of the eye of the person, the at least two images being two-dimensional symbols and being carried by [two light beams] focused substantially in the plane of a pupil of the eye at least two different positions; adapting a parameter of the two-dimensional symbols in each image based on feedback of the person relative to a change of the parameter of the symbol in the image; and determining the at least three optical parameters of the person’s eye based on the adaption of the parameter of the symbol in each image. ( Applicant defines this aspect in Figure 5, [0114]-[0115] of the specification, focusing on different cases/images for correct for the user’s visual defects. [0116] discloses different case images for different visual defects and the user provides feedback. Please note Examiner cites this as basis to show how Macnamara (as well as the combination with Jones below) teaches of this concept. By the same logic, Macnamara teaches in Figure 8, [0094] of dynamic vision correction by initiating an eye-prescription configurator program. Figure 8 shows a plurality of user’s visual defects and the light field processor can generate and receive granular data, with such data being shown in Figure 9A/9B, [0096] (read as multiple/at least two sharp images). The images can be two-dimensional, as shown, and captured by the light field processor, [0084]. [0090] discloses feedback from the user through a user interface and having the option to adjust until arriving at a comfortable viewing prescription to resolve the defect (read as determining the at least one optical parameter). Furthermore, Figure 9 shows a tree(s), for example, which is the reference symbol(s). To clarify, both the present invention and Macnamara teach of iteratively displaying and capturing images and interacting with the user to resolve visual defects. For aspects of the plurality of light beams, etc, please note the combination below );
wherein the adaptation is performed iteratively until the two-dimensional symbols are perceived by the person as superimposed into a single sharp image ( As noted above and emphasized in [0393], the process can be performed iteratively until the metric is maximized or otherwise determined to be sufficient. That is, the light field processor can properly characterize a patient’s vision. [0150] and [0393] disclose selection of multiple vergence values to improve the image quality metric and again, this is performed iteratively until the metrics are clear, i.e. the image is sharp/sufficient ); but
Macnamara does not explicitly teach “provide a plurality of light beams configured to be focused substantially in a plane of a pupil of the eye at a plurality of corresponding different positions, each light beam being configured to carry an associated sub-image” (emphasis on underlined aspects). Emphasis is also made on the “two light beams” making up the two-dimensional symbols, etc. Furthermore, Macnamara does not explicitly teach of “adapting a horizontal angular position of the sub-image carried by the associated light beam based on the at least one provided optical parameter and on the corresponding focused position of the associated light beam; and adapting a vertical angular position of the sub-image carried by the associated light beam based on the at least one provided optical parameter and on the corresponding focused position of the associated light beam”.
Macnamara teaches of using beams of light with varying degrees of vergence as a way of providing the image data. To clarify, [0391]+ disclose details on the iterative process of enhancing a user’s vision until it is sufficient. Please note the various vergence points, etc, which suggest of a plurality of sub-images, a plurality of light beams, etc. Furthermore, a “sub-image” is a broad term as it is clear that the multiple beams of light are required to output an image data to the user’s eyes.
To emphasize, in the same field of endeavor, eye imaging systems, Jones teaches to use an optical lens system to trace first and second images 700, 750, etc, ( Jones, [0093] ). Notably, as shown in Figure 7, the images are made up of a plurality of light rays/beams, etc, which together make up the overall image (read the individual rays/beams as sub-images). [0138] discloses using combiners to render process corrections before being displayed to the left and right eyes and the corrections are for addressing optical aberrations, [0002], similar to Macnamara. As combined, the multiple light rays/beams which make up the image can be applied to Macnamara’s light beam outputs, resulting in a plurality of sub-images. Furthermore, Figure 7, [0093] discloses multiple images with a plurality of light beams/rays which can converge on a user’s pupil, or eye in general. Note the different positions for the individual light beams/rays. As combined with Macnamara, who also teaches of a plurality of light beams, this can make up an entire image for the user to realize. To clarify, the combination teaches to correct/compensate (read as adapting) an image based on the user’s prescription or particular eye issues. Please note the two images are for the left and right eye of the user and these are corrected/compensated to reach a target.
Furthermore, as for the adapting of horizontal and vertical angular positions: Jones, Figure 7, [0093], [0095], discloses measurements in which the light beams/rays can be moved in both X (lateral) and Y (vertical directions). Furthermore, Jones teaches in [0167] of shifting pixels with the image to compensate for the aberrations, another examples of vertical and horizontal movement.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to implement the plurality of sub-images to make up an overall image, as taught by Jones, with the motivation that by controlling the individual rays, etc, optical aberrations can be addressed, ( Jones, [0002] ). Furthermore, Jones teaches in [0077] that this will provide an optimal visual stimulus to the user.
Macnamara and Jones do not explicitly teach “the light beams being focused at a maximum distance of 10 mm from the plane of the pupil of the eye ensuring sharp display of the at least two sharp images on the retina”.
However, exit pupil distance, i.e. the distance from the pupil to the image plane is a well known concept in the field. To emphasize, imaging apparatus, Ishihara teaches of an imaging optical system, ( Ishihara, Figure 1, [0473] ). Notably, the distance from the exit pupil to the image plane is set shorter than the distance from the aperture stop to the image plane and while these values are related, the values are less than the claimed 10 millimeters. Respectfully, this distance value is based on a number of factors and can be optimized as such, essentially rendering it a design choice issue.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filed date of the invention, to implement the exit pupil distance, as taught by Ishihara, with the motivation that by setting the appropriate distance, coma cab be appropriately corrected, ( Ishihara, [0474] ).
Macnamara and Jones teach in Claim 14:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including one or more stored sequences of instructions that are accessible to a processor and which, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to carry out at least the steps of claim 1. ( [0055], [0532] discloses several examples of components which can receive and execute instructions. Jones, [0202] also teaches of any machine-readable medium embodying instructions can be used )
Macnamara and Jones teach in Claim 16:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the two-dimensional symbols correspond to crosses. ( Macanamara teaches in Figures 9A/9B, [0090]+ of using symbols which can used to test the user and to adjust the image content. In light of the symbols which are clearly taught by Macnamara, it is a design choice issue as to what the symbol type is, such as a cross, a tree, etc. Respectfully, this is not a patentable distinction )
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant’s arguments considered, but are respectfully moot in view of new grounds of rejection(s).
In light of the new claim amendments, the previous grounds have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new reference, Ishihara, has been cited. As a result, Applicant’s arguments are moot at this time.
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENNIS P JOSEPH whose telephone number is (571)270-1459. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 5:30 - 3:30 EST.
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, Amr Awad can be reached on 571-272-7764. 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.
/DENNIS P JOSEPH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
Prosecution Insights