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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/10/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments filed 06/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant' s argument that Kim explains that optical device array 220 spatially divides parallax images, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of applicant' s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Kim et al. (figures 1-11) discloses a dynamic aperture adjustment element (figures 3E-4B) disposed adjacent to the first lens and configured to selectively define a localized aperture opening for the first lens, and to dynamically control an aperture diameter Adl and a horizontal position of the localized aperture opening on a plane (X-Y) perpendicular to an optical axis (Z) (pinholes of two pinhole arrays may be dynamically adjusted to change states of the pinhole arrays over time such that two pinhole arrays alternately serve as pinholes or to block light. Although only two pinhole arrays are illustrated in FIG. 7, three or more pinhole arrays may be used to change states of the pinhole arrays over time, and lens arrays may also be applied instead of the pinhole arrays; see at least paragraphs 0045 and 0055) a diameter PDeye and a horizontal center position of the exit pupil are determined according to the aperture diameter Adl and the aperture-center position of the localized aperture opening adjusted according to a control signal from the control system, such that PDeye = (De/Do)*Aai and the exit pupil shifts horizontally in a direction opposite to an aperture-center shift with a proportionality factor (De/Do) (the pupil position tracing sensor 820 may be used to correct or align observed images with the eyeball 250 according to a personal state by detecting a position of the eyeball 250 to detect the position of and a distance to the pupil and a change in position of the eyeball 250 according to a state in which the 3D display 800 is worn; see at least paragraph 0060). The examiner merely relies on Okamura (figure 4) for the teaching of the aperture diameter Aai and the aperture-center position being electrically adjustable, the dynamic aperture adjustment element being configured such that, at any given instant, only one aperture opening adjacent to the first lens is active (16; Okamura teaches that shutter 16 can be a mechanical shutter capable of opening and closing mechanically, or it can be a liquid crystal shutter capable of operating by ON and OFF of the power source; see at least page 6, lines 54-60, In addition, it is known in the art that an LCD shutter typically opens as one single, large aperture covering the entire display area). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dynamic aperture adjustment element as taught by Okamura in order to reduce the occurrence of the aberration and improve the display resolution ratio.
In addition, the applicant should note that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of the reference may be bodily incorporated into the other to produce the claimed subject mater but simply what the references make obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art. In re Bozek, 163 USPQ 545, (CCPA 1969); In re Richman, 165 USPQ 509, (CCPA 1970); In re Beckum, 169 USPQ 47, (CCPA 1971); In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 218 USPQ 385.
The claim language therefore does not patentably distinguish over the applied reference[s], and the previous rejections are maintained.
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 9-14, 16, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2019/0068958) in view of Okamura (US 5,601,352).
Regarding claim 1, Kim et al. (figures 1-11) discloses a near-eye display device comprising:
a display (210);
a first lens (220) disposed in front of the display so as to be spaced apart from the display by a predetermined distance Dmd;
a dynamic aperture adjustment element (figures 3E-4B) disposed adjacent to the first lens and configured to selectively define a localized aperture opening for the first lens, and to dynamically control an aperture diameter Adl and a horizontal position of the localized aperture opening on a plane (X-Y) perpendicular to an optical axis (Z) (pinholes of two pinhole arrays may be dynamically adjusted to change states of the pinhole arrays over time such that two pinhole arrays alternately serve as pinholes or to block light. Although only two pinhole arrays are illustrated in FIG. 7, three or more pinhole arrays may be used to change states of the pinhole arrays over time, and lens arrays may also be applied instead of the pinhole arrays; see at least paragraphs 0045 and 0055);
a main optics lens (240) disposed to be spaced apart from the first lens by a predetermined distance Do; and
a control system configured to control the dynamic aperture adjustment element (200A and 200B),
wherein an eye pupil of an observer (250) is positioned in an exit pupil (260) disposed to be spaced apart from the main optics lens by a predetermined distance De, the exit pupil being defined as a maximum cross-section of a convergence area on the X-Y plane; and
a diameter PDeye and a horizontal center position of the exit pupil are determined according to the aperture diameter Adl and the aperture-center position of the localized aperture opening adjusted according to a control signal from the control system, such that PDeye = (De/Do)*Aai and the exit pupil shifts horizontally in a direction opposite to an aperture-center shift with a proportionality factor (De/Do) (the pupil position tracing sensor 820 may be used to correct or align observed images with the eyeball 250 according to a personal state by detecting a position of the eyeball 250 to detect the position of and a distance to the pupil and a change in position of the eyeball 250 according to a state in which the 3D display 800 is worn; see at least paragraph 0060).
Kim et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Kim et al. is silent regarding the aperture diameter Aai and an aperture-center position of the localized aperture opening being electrically adjustable, the dynamic aperture adjustment element being configured such that, at any given instant, only one localized aperture opening adjacent to the first lens is active. Okamura (figure 4) teaches the aperture diameter Aai and an aperture-center position of the localized aperture opening being electrically adjustable, the dynamic aperture adjustment element being configured such that, at any given instant, only one localized aperture opening adjacent to the first lens is active (16; Okamura teaches that shutter 16 can be a mechanical shutter capable of opening and closing mechanically, or it can be a liquid crystal shutter capable of operating by ON and OFF of the power source; see at least page 6, lines 54-60, In addition, it is known in the art that an LCD shutter typically opens as one single, large aperture covering the entire display area). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dynamic aperture adjustment element as taught by Okamura in order to reduce the occurrence of the aberration and improve the display resolution ratio.
The limitations " the aperture diameter Aai and an aperture-center position of the localized aperture opening being electrically adjustable; wherein an eye pupil of an observer is positioned in an exit pupil disposed to be spaced apart from the main optics lens by a predetermined distance De, the exit pupil being defined as a maximum cross-section of a convergence area on the X-Y plane, and a diameter PDeye and a horizontal center position of the exit pupil are determined according to the aperture diameter Adl and an aperture center position of the aperture of the dynamic aperture adjustment element that are adjusted according to a control signal from the control system, such that PDeye = (De/Do)*Aai and the exit pupil shifts horizontally in a direction opposite to the aperture-center shift with a proportionality factor De/Do)" are regarded as intended use limitations. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 2, Kim et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Kim et al. is silent regarding the size of the pupil. Kim et al. (figures 1-11) teaches wherein the aperture diameter Adl of the localized aperture opening of the dynamic aperture adjustment element is adjusted such that a size of the exit pupil is within 2 mm that is smaller than a pupil size of the observer (see at least paragraph 0045). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 3, Kim et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Kim et al. is silent regarding wherein the dynamic aperture adjustment element is a liquid crystal device (LCD) or an electronic shutter, in which the aperture opening Adl and the horizontal position of the localized aperture opening are adjustable according to the control signal from the control system. Okamura (figure 4) teaches wherein the dynamic aperture adjustment element is a liquid crystal device (LCD) or an electronic shutter, in which the aperture opening Adl and the horizontal position of the localized aperture opening are adjustable according to the control signal from the control system (16; Okamura teaches that shutter 16 can be a mechanical shutter capable of opening and closing mechanically, or it can be a liquid crystal shutter capable of operating by ON and OFF of the power source; see at least page 6, lines 54-60, In addition, it is known in the art that an LCD shutter typically opens as one single, large aperture covering the entire display area). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dynamic aperture adjustment element as taught by Okamura in order to reduce the occurrence of the aberration and improve the display resolution ratio.
Regarding claim 6, Kim et al. (figures 1-11) discloses a pupil tracking device (802; figure 8) configured to track an eye pupil position of the observer, wherein the control system uses pupil tracking information acquired by the pupil tracking device to control the horizontal position of the localized aperture opening of the dynamic aperture adjustment element in real time such that the exit pupil is continuously disposed in the eye pupil of the observer (see at least paragraphs 0045-0047).
The limitations "wherein the control system uses pupil tracking information acquired by the pupil tracking device to control the horizontal position of the localized aperture opening of the dynamic aperture adjustment element in real time such that the exit pupil is continuously disposed in the eye pupil of the observer" are regarded as intended use limitations. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 9, Kim et al. (figures 1-11) discloses wherein two or more aperture positions of the dynamic aperture adjustment element are arranged in a horizontal direction, a vertical direction, a diagonal direction, or a combination thereof on the plane perpendicular to the optical axis (see at least paragraphs 0045-0047).
The limitations "wherein two or more aperture positions of the dynamic aperture adjustment element are arranged in a horizontal direction, a vertical direction, a diagonal direction, or a combination thereof on the plane perpendicular to the optical axis" are regarded as intended use limitations. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 10, Kim et al. (figures 1-11) discloses wherein the control system adjusts the aperture diameter Adl of the localized aperture opening of the dynamic aperture element according to a set best virtual image position and a depth of focus range to adjust a size of the exit pupil at an eye pupil position such that a nearest image blur size of an image point formed on a retina at a nearest focus position of an eye is equal to a farthest image blur size of an image point formed on the retina at a farthest focus position of the eye, the nearest image blur size and the farthest image blur size are within ±20% of a same value as an image blur size due to diffraction, and a best position of an image point of a virtual image is an arithmetic mean position of a nearest focus position and a farthest focus position of the eye in a diopter unit (see at least paragraph 0074).
The limitations " wherein the control system adjusts the aperture diameter Adl of the localized aperture opening of the dynamic aperture element according to a set best virtual image position and a depth of focus range to adjust a size of the exit pupil at an eye pupil position such that a nearest image blur size of an image point formed on a retina at a nearest focus position of an eye is equal to a farthest image blur size of an image point formed on the retina at a farthest focus position of the eye, the nearest image blur size and the farthest image blur size are within ±20% of a same value as an image blur size due to diffraction, and a best position of an image point of a virtual image is an arithmetic mean position of a nearest focus position and a farthest focus position of the eye in a diopter unit " are regarded as intended use limitations. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 11, Kim et al. (figures 1-11) discloses wherein the localized aperture opening of the dynamic aperture adjustment element is an annular aperture including a circular light blocking portion in a circular aperture (figures 3E-4B).
Regarding claim 12, Kim et al. (figures 1-11) discloses wherein, when a radius of the circular aperture is denoted by a and a radius of the circular light blocking portion is denoted by a.sub.0, and when a ratio of the radius of the circular light blocking portion to the radius of the circular aperture is defined as β (≡a.sub.0/a), β is zero or more and 1/3 or less (1; figures 3E-4B).
Regarding claim 13, Kim et al. (figures 1-11) discloses wherein, when a radius of the circular aperture is denoted by a and a radius of the circular light blocking portion is denoted by a.sub.0, and when a ratio of the radius of the circular light blocking portion to the radius of the circular aperture is defined as β (≡a.sub.0/a), β is zero or more and 0.45 or less (1; figures 3E-4B).
Regarding claim 14, Kim et al. (figures 1-11) discloses wherein the control system adjusts the aperture diameter Adl of the localized aperture opening of the dynamic aperture adjustment element to be wide so as to decrease the depth of focus range at a best virtual image position set according to a type of the virtual image and to provide an image with increased resolution (see at least paragraph 0041).
The limitation, “wherein the control system adjusts the size of the aperture of the dynamic aperture adjustment element to be wide so as to decrease the depth of focus range at a best virtual image position set according to a type of the virtual image and to provide an image with increased resolution” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Kim et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 16, Kim et al. (figures 1-11) discloses wherein the first lens has a focal distance which is adjustable according to the control signal from the control system, and the control system controls the focal distance of the first lens according to the set best virtual image position to adjust a best virtual image position (see at least paragraphs 0045-0047).
The limitations " wherein the first lens has a focal distance which is adjustable according to the control signal from the control system, and the control system controls the focal distance of the first lens according to the set best virtual image position to adjust a best virtual image position" are regarded as intended use limitations. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 31, Kim et al. (figures 1-11) discloses wherein a field of view is increased by enlarging an image of the display so as to be greater than a size of the display between the first lens and the main optics lens by using the first lens (see at least paragraphs 0045-0052).
The limitations " wherein a field of view is increased by enlarging an image of the display so as to be greater than a size of the display between the first lens and the main optics lens by using the first lens " are regarded as intended use limitations. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1428. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 8:00 AM -6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Carruth, can be reached at 571-272-97911. 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.
/LAUREN NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights