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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 12/02/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to at least independent claims 1 and 16 have been considered, but are not persuasive. The new ground of rejection cites Karasawa US Patent 5739797A as teaching the amended claim limitations in claims 1 and 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 13, 16 and 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Karasawa US Patent 5739797A.
Regarding claim 1, Karasawa discloses an augmented reality system (1), in at least figs.1-11, comprising:
A monocular near-eye display (3) operable to form virtual images viewable by a first (12L) of a wearer's eyes (see figs.1-3),
the near-eye display located within a field of view of the first of the wearer's eyes (see figs.1-3);
the near-eye display comprising an image source (9) operable to generate the virtual images (see figs.1-3)); and
an optical block (4 or 4’ or 16) located within a field of view of a second (12R) of the wearer's eyes (see figs.3 and 4), wherein the optical block is operable to prevent a portion of environmental light from reaching a retina of the second of the wearer's eyes (see figs.3-4).
Regarding claim 2, Karasawa discloses the second of the wearer's eyes is the wearer's dominant eye (see table 1 and col.12, lines 61-67 and col.13, lines 25-31).
Regarding claim 4, Karasawa discloses the optical block is smaller than the near-eye display (see figs.3 and 4 and col.14, lines 9-41 discloses the position of the optical block can be any positions between 4 and 4’ in fig.3 and size of the optical block changed depending on its longitudinal position).
Regarding claim 5, Karasawa discloses the optical block is at least one of semi-transparent, opaque, and black (see col.14, lines 9-22 and fig.3).
Regarding claim 8, Karasawa discloses the position of the optical block is a function of inter-pupillary distance between the first and second of the wearer's eyes (see fig.3 and col.14, lines 9-22 discloses the position of the optical block can be any positions between 4 and 4’ in fig.3).
Regarding claim 13, Karasawa discloses the near-eye display is removably secured to an eyeglass frame or a pair of goggles (see figs.1-3).
Regarding claim 16, Karasawa discloses an augmented reality system (1), in at least figs.1-11, comprising:
a monocular near-eye display (3) operable to form virtual images viewable by a first (12L) of a wearer's eyes (see figs.1-3),
the near-eye display located within a field of view of the first of the wearer's eyes (see figs.1-3);
the near-eye display comprising an image source (9) operable to generate the virtual images at optical infinity (see figs.1-3); and
a support (5) having an optical block (4 or 4’ or 16), the optical block located within a field of view of a second (12R) of the wearer's eyes which overlaps with the field of view of first of the wearer's eyes (see figs.3 and 4), wherein the optical block is operable to at least partially reduce a portion of environmental light from reaching a retina of the second of the wearer's eyes (see figs.3 and 4).
Regarding claim 22, Karasawa discloses the optical block comprises a circumference, or length and width, that is substantially the same size as, or smaller than, a circumference of an iris of the wearer (see figs.3 and 4 and col.14, lines 9-41 discloses the position of the optical block can be any positions between 4 and 4’ in fig.3 and size of the optical block changed depending on its longitudinal position, see fig.3, when the optical block is at position of 4’ which is substantially the same size as the iris of the wearer, or generally the size of the iris of the wearer).
Regarding claim 23, Karasawa discloses a position of the optical block is a function of at least an inter-pupillary distance of the wearer's eyes (see fig.3 and col.14, lines 9-22 discloses the position of the optical block can be any positions between 4 and 4’ in fig.3).
Regarding claim 24, Karasawa discloses sensory eye dominance of the second of the wearer's eyes is reduced (see col.12, lines 42-67 and col.13, lines 19-61).
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) 10, 11 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karasawa US Patent 5739797A as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tsai US 20190056604.
Regarding claim 10, Karasawa does not explicitly disclose the optical block is arranged along a surface of a transparent window or plate, and wherein the optical block comprises a groove arranged to receive at least a portion of a securement device.
Tsai discloses an augmented reality system, in at least figs.1-10, the optical block (21 or 2) is arranged along a surface of a transparent window or plate (13, see figs.1-3), and wherein the optical block comprises a groove (edge of the 21 or center upper or lower groove of 2) arranged to receive at least a portion of a securement device (22)(see figs.1 and 2) for the purpose of fixing the optical block and protecting the eyes (para.67 and 71 and fig.1)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the optical block is arranged along a surface of a transparent window or plate, and wherein the optical block comprises a groove arranged to receive at least a portion of a securement device as taught by Tsai in the augmented reality system of Karasawa for the purpose of fixing the optical block and protecting the eyes.
Regarding claim 11, Karasawa does not explicitly disclose the optical block is arranged along a surface of a transparent window or plate, and wherein the optical block comprises a through-bore arranged through at least a portion of the optical block, wherein the through-bore is arranged to receive at least a portion of a securement device.
Tsai discloses an augmented reality system, in at least figs.1-10, the optical block (2) is arranged along a surface of a transparent window or plate (13, see figs.1-3), and wherein the optical block comprises a through-bore (center upper or lower through-bore) arranged through at least a portion of the optical block, wherein the through-bore is arranged to receive at least a portion of a securement device (12)(see figs.1 and 2) for the purpose of fixing the optical block and protecting the eyes (para.67 and 71 and fig.1).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the optical block is arranged along a surface of a transparent window or plate, and wherein the optical block comprises a through-bore arranged through at least a portion of the optical block, wherein the through-bore is arranged to receive at least a portion of a securement device as taught by Tsai in the augmented reality system of Karasawa for the purpose of fixing the optical block and protecting the eyes.
Regarding claim 22, Karasawa does not explicitly disclose the optical block comprises a circumference, or length and width, that is substantially the same size as, or smaller than, a circumference of an iris of the wearer.
Tsai discloses an augmented reality system, in at least figs.1-10, the optical block (21) comprises a circumference, or length and width, that is substantially the same size as, or smaller than, a circumference of an iris of the wearer (see fig.3) for the purpose of filtering, blocking or reducing light and protecting the eyes (para.67 and 71 and fig.3).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the optical block comprises a circumference, or length and width, that is substantially the same size as, or smaller than, a circumference of an iris of the wearer as taught by Tsai in the augmented reality system of Karasawa for the purpose of filtering, blocking or reducing light and protecting the eyes.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karasawa US Patent 5739797A as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gollier US 20180120579.
Regarding claim 12, Karasawa does not explicitly disclose the optical block is secured to a first transparent window or plate of the augmented reality system via an adhesive material.
Gollier discloses an augmented reality system, in at least figs.1A, 7 and 8, an optical element (106) is secured to a first transparent window or plate (104) of the augmented reality system via an adhesive material (105) for the purpose of bonding two elements to each other.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the optical block is secured to a first transparent window or plate of the augmented reality system via an adhesive material as taught by Gollier in the augmented reality system of Karasawa in order to have the optical block is secured to a first transparent window or plate of the augmented reality system via an adhesive material for the purpose of bonding two elements to each other.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karasawa US Patent 5739797A as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Tsai US 20190056604.
Regarding claim 18, Karasawa does not explicitly disclose the support is a window and wherein the optical block is a substrate mounted to the window.
Tsai discloses an augmented reality system, in at least figs.1-10, the support (13) is a window (see figs.1-3) and wherein the optical block (21 or 2) is a substrate mounted to the window (see figs.1-3) for the purpose of fixing the optical block and protecting the eyes (para.67 and 71 and fig.1).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the support is a window and wherein the optical block is a substrate mounted to the window as taught by Tsai in the augmented reality system of Karasawa for the purpose of fixing the optical block and protecting the eyes.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 21, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or disclose, in light of the specification, the claim limitation of claim 21. For instance, Karasawa US Patent 5739797A, Tsai US 20190056604 and Gollier US 20180120579 taken along or in combination, at least fails to disclose or suggest “an augmented reality system having a near-eye display operable to form virtual images viewable by a first of a wearer's eyes, wherein the near-eye display is removably secured to an eyeglass frame or a pair of goggles and located within a field of view of the first of the wearer's eyes; the near-eye display comprising an image source operable to generate the virtual images; an optical block located within a field of view of a second of the wearer's eyes, wherein the optical block is operable to prevent a portion of environmental light from reaching a retina of the second of the wearer's eyes; and a securement device configured to connect the optical block with the eyeglass frame or pair of goggles, wherein the securement device comprises a first end arranged to be secured about at least a portion of a nose bridge of the eyeglass frame or the pair of goggles, and a second end arranged about an end piece of the eyeglass frame or pair of goggles, wherein a length of the first end and/or a length of the second end of the securement device is increased or decreased to alter a position of the optical block within a user's field of view”.
Also, claim 14 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 14, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest the claim limitations of “the optical block is configured to engage with the eyeglass frame or pair of goggles via a securement device, wherein the securement device comprises a first end arranged to be secured about at least a portion of a nose bridge of the eyeglass frame or the pair of goggles, and a second end arranged about an end piece of the eyeglass frame or pair of goggles, wherein a length of the first end and/or a length of the second end of the securement device is increased or decreased to alter a position of the optical block within a user's field of view”, along with other claim limitations.
Karasawa US Patent 5739797A, Tsai US 20190056604 and Gollier US 20180120579 either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the claim limitations of “the optical block is configured to engage with the eyeglass frame or pair of goggles via a securement device, wherein the securement device comprises a first end arranged to be secured about at least a portion of a nose bridge of the eyeglass frame or the pair of goggles, and a second end arranged about an end piece of the eyeglass frame or pair of goggles, wherein a length of the first end and/or a length of the second end of the securement device is increased or decreased to alter a position of the optical block within a user's field of view”, along with other claim limitations.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Robertson US Patent 6034653 (at least fig.14) and Cameron US Patent 5189512 (at least fig.6) can be a primary reference as well.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIA X PAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7574. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 11:00AM - 5:00PM.
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, Michael H Caley can be reached at (571)272-2286. 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.
/JIA X PAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871