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 05/21/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to at least independent claims 1 and 16 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
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, 2, 4, 5 and 10-14 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 13, the claim limitations, “wherein 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” are considered to be indefinite. The claim limitations “wherein 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” appear to contradict the disclosure. Para.41 of current application discloses “In yet another embodiment, the optical block 150 is generally the size (e.g., area) of the user's iris. In still another embodiment, the optical block 150 is generally smaller than the user's iris” Therefore, it is indefinite.
For the purpose of examination, the examiner will interpret the above limitation as - - “wherein the optical block comprises a circumference,
Also, dependent Claims 2,4,5 and 10-14 are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
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, 16 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cameron US Patent 5189512A.
Regarding claim 1, Cameron discloses an augmented reality system, in figs.1-6, comprising:
a monocular near-eye display (6) operable to form virtual images viewable by a first of a wearer's eyes (25), the near-eye display located within a field of view of the first of the wearer's eyes (see at least figs.2 and 6);
the near-eye display comprising an image source (27 or 27’) operable to generate the virtual images (abstract); and
an optical block (10 or 10’) located within a field of view of a second of the wearer's eyes (see at least figs.2 and 6), wherein the optical block comprises a circumference, that is substantially the same size as, or smaller than, a circumference of an iris of the wearer (col.6, lines 59-62 and see iris of right eye in at least fig.6), 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 at least fig.6 and abstract and col.4, lines 13-15);
wherein the position of the optical block is a function of inter-pupillary distance between the first and second of the wearer's eyes (see figs.2 and 6 and col.6, lines 63-68).
Regarding claim 2, Cameron discloses the second of the wearer's eyes is the wearer's dominant eye (col.7, lines 12-29).
Regarding claim 4, Cameron discloses the optical block is smaller than the near-eye display (see figs.2 and 6).
Regarding claim 5, Cameron discloses the optical block is at least one of semi-transparent, opaque, and black (col.6, lines 59-60).
Regarding claim 16, Cameron discloses an augmented reality system, in figs.1-6, comprising:
a monocular near-eye display (6) operable to form virtual images viewable by a first of a wearer's eyes (25), the near-eye display located within a field of view of the first of the wearer's eyes (see at least figs.2 and 6);
the near-eye display comprising an image source (27 or 27’) operable to generate the virtual images at optical infinity (abstract); and
a support (see at least figs.2 and 6) having an optical block (10 or 10’), the optical block located within a field of view of a second of the wearer's eyes which overlaps with the field of view of the first of the wearer's eyes (see at least figs.2 and 6), 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 fig.6 and abstract and col.4, lines 13-15), wherein the position of the optical block is a function of inter-pupillary distance between the first and second of the wearer's eyes (see figs.2 and 6 and col.6, lines 63-68).
Regarding claim 24, Cameron discloses sensory eye dominance of the second of the wearer's eyes is reduced (col.7, lines 12-29).
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) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cameron US Patent 5189512A as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gollier US 20180120579.
Regarding claim 12, Cameron 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 an optical element 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 Cameron 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 for supporting the optical block.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cameron US Patent 5189512A as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang US 20150070773.
Regarding claim 13, Cameron discloses the near-eye display is removably secured to a frame (5 or 5’).
Cameron does not explicitly disclose the frame is an eyeglass frame.
Wang discloses an augmented reality system, in at least figs.16A and 16B, the frame is an eyeglass frame (see fig.16A and 16B) for the purpose of having a virtual image display apparatus (para.38 and 145).
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 frame is an eyeglass frame as taught by Wang in the augmented reality system of Cameron for the purpose of having a virtual image display apparatus.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cameron US Patent 5189512A as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Tsai US 20190056604.
Regarding claim 18, Cameron 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) is a substrate mounted to the window (see figs.1-3) for the purpose of supporting 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 Cameron 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, Cameron US Patent 5189512A, 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, claims 10, 11 and 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 10, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest the claim limitations of “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”, along with other claim limitations.
Cameron US Patent 5189512A, 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 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”, along with other claim limitations.
Regarding claim 11, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest the claim limitations of “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”, along with other claim limitations.
Cameron US Patent 5189512A, 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 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”, along with other claim limitations.
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.
Cameron US Patent 5189512A, 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.
Contact Information
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
Prosecution Insights