DETAILED ACTION
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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/15/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment on 04/15/26 have been entered. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-24 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection as necessitated by claim amendment.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phase “glued together” should change to either “bonded,” “joined,” or “coupled.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-24 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “handling overlapped portions of a phase space of said system” is unclear and does not particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention. The term “phase space” is not defined in the claim and has multiple interpretation in optics and physics, including spatial-frequency space, ray space, and classical position-momentum phase space. Additionally, the term “handling overlapped portions” is functional and does not specify the structure or operation performed by the optical channels. For purposes of examination, the limitation “phase space of said system” is interpreted broadly as “a multidimensional representation of optical propagation states, including spatial position and angular direction of light rays. The phrase “handling overlapped portions” is interpreted as “two or more optical channels being configured to process, represent, or respond to overlapping subsets of the ray-space, where such subsets correspond to partially shared spatial and angular regions of emitted or received light.”
Regarding claims 2 and 17, the phase “handling overlapped portions of a phase space of said system” and “whose respective phase space includes a pixel display angle of the data pixel” render the scope of the claim unclear. The term “phase space” is not defined in the claim and has multiple interpretation in optics and physics, including spatial-frequency space, ray space, and classical position-momentum phase space. The claim does not specify which meaning is intended or how such phase space is constructed in the context of a near-eye display system. Further, the term “handling overlapped portions” fails to recite any objective criteria for determining, “how phase space is partitioned among optical channels,” or “what constitutes ‘overlap’ between such portions.” For purposes of examination, the limitation “phase space of said system” is interpreted broadly as “a multidimensional representation of optical propagation states, including spatial position and angular direction of light rays. The phrase “handling overlapped portions” is interpreted as “two or more optical channels being configured to process, represent, or respond to overlapping subsets of the ray-space, where such subsets correspond to partially shared spatial and angular regions of emitted or received light.”
Regarding claim 3, the phrase “purely reflective lens portions” is internally inconsistent. The
term “lens” is generally understood to refer to a refractive optical element, whereas “reflective” denotes an element that operates by reflection. The modifier “purely” excludes refractive behavior. The claim does not clarify whether “lens portions” refers to shape, function, or optical mechanism. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the claimed invention. For purposes of examination, the phrase “purely reflective lens portions” is interpreted as optical elements that provide optical power via reflection, rather than refraction.
Regarding claim 16, the phrase “purely reflective lens portions” is internally inconsistent. The
term “lens” is generally understood to refer to a refractive optical element, whereas “reflective” denotes an element that operates by reflection. The modifier “purely” excludes refractive behavior. The claim does not clarify whether “lens portions” refers to shape, function, or optical mechanism. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the claimed invention. For purposes of examination, the phrase “purely reflective lens portions” is interpreted as optical elements that provide optical power via reflection, rather than refraction.
The phrase “cut from a donor lens” is unclear because it recites a method of manufacture rather than defining the structure of the claimed apparatus. It is not evident what structural characteristics are imparted to the “lens portions” by virtue of being cut from a “donor lens.” It is unclear whether the donor lens is part of the claimed invention or merely a source material. Therefore, the scope of the claim is not reasonably certain. For the purpose of examination, the limitation “cut from a donor lens” is interpreted as a product-by-process. The claim is interpreted primarily based on the resulting structure rather than the method of manufacture.
The phrase “short EFL” is a term of degree that lacks an objective standard. The claim does not provide a numerical range, comparison, or reference point that would inform one of ordinary skill in the art what constitutes a “short” effective focal length. Accordingly the scope of the claim is not reasonably certain.
Regarding claims 4-15 and 18-24 are being rejected under 35 USC 112(b) or 35 USC 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, because the inherit the deficiencies of the parent claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY DUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-0534. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached at (571)270-1284. 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.
/HENRY DUONG/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872 04/17/26
Prosecution Insights