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 .
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 03/30/2026. Claims 1-21, 23-25 remain pending with claims 1, 5, 19 and 25 have been amended.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/30/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remark, Applicants made one main argument. Danziger does not, however, suggest a scattering optic “positioned to produce diffuse light from one or more positions aligned with the image sensor and the lens.” Nor does it suggest a scattering optic “positioned to produce the diffuse light by scattering the light produced by the light source, wherein at least some of the diffuse light is directed from a position that is less than the lens aperture radius distance from the lens optical axis and directed towards a retina of an eye, and wherein the captured light comprises reflections of the diffuse light off of the retina.”
This argument is not persuasive. Danziger clearly teaches that waveguides 120/110 functioned as a scattering optic “positioned to produce diffuse light from one or more positions aligned with the image sensor 125 and lens 115, as well as suggested that waveguides 120/110 functioned as scattering optic “positioned to produce the diffuse light by scattering the light produced by the light source 1002 (see sections [0065], [0067], [0068], [0069], [0070]), and wherein at least some of the diffuse light is directed from a position that is less than the lens aperture radius distance from the lens optical axis and directed towards a retina of an eye, and wherein the captured light comprises reflections of the diffuse light off of the retina (see updated rejection below for details).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-6, 13, 14, 16-18, 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danziger et al (US 2019/0056600), hereinafter as Danziger, in view of Arima et al (US 2020/0386919), hereinafter as Arima.
RE claims 1 and 25, Danziger discloses the invention substantially as claimed.
Danziger discloses that a device and its operating method (see figures 6A/6B and section [0066]; i.e., apparatus 100) comprising: a camera comprising a chamber with an aperture fitted with a lens through which captured light is received to form images that are projected onto a surface for recording or translation into electrical impulses (see figures 6A/6B and sections [0063], [0065], [0066], [0069], [0097]; i.e., the camera 125 comprising a chamber with an aperture fitted with lens 106, LOE 110/120 having aperture multiplication capability to receive captured light/image, image projector 102 to project formed images to waveguide within LOE 110/120, or translation into electrical impulses determined by the processing system 108), the camera lens having a lens optical axis and a lens aperture radius distance (see section [0065]; i.e., the camera 125 with lens 106 for generating collimated projected image or distant scene, achieving reduced aperture and focused by focusing lens 106 toward camera 125, the lens 106 having its radius distance); a light source configured to project light that is directed towards a scattering optic (see figure 8 and sections [0070], [0071]; i.e., the light source 1002 to produce light and directing it toward a scattering optic 120); the scattering optic positioned to produce diffuse light from one or more positions aligned with the image sensor and the lens (see sections [0065], [0067], [0068], [0069], [0070]; i.e., waveguides 120/110 functioned as a scattering optic positioned to produce diffuse light from one or more positions aligned with the image sensor 125 and lens 115), wherein the scattering optic is positioned to produce the diffuse light by scattering the light produced by the light source (see figures 6A/6B/8 and sections [0067], [0069]; i.e., the waveguides 120/110 or spectacle lens 117 is the scattering optic to produce diffuse light by sight correction via the light from the light source 1002), wherein at least some of the diffuse light is directed from the lens optical axis and directed towards a retina of an eye, and wherein the captured light comprises reflections of the diffuse light off of the retina (see figures 6A/6B/8 and sections [0069], [0070]; i.e., the dash-dot arrow reflections from the retina 121 are the signal of interest, while the dash-dot-dot arrow reflection from non-retina tissue surfaces are not of interest); and one or more processors configured to track the eye based on the images (see figures 6A/6B and section [0097]; i.e., the processing system 108 for tracking the eye 150 based on the images).
However, Danziger does not specifically disclose that wherein at least some of the diffuse light is directed from a position that is less than the lens aperture radius distance.
From the same field of endeavor, Arima teaches that a diffuser plate that scatters incident light to various directions is widely utilized in various devices such as, for example, a display device such as display, a projection device such as a projector, and various types of lighting devices (see section [0002]). And by optimally selecting a reference aperture diameter D, a reference radius of curvature R, homogeneity of diffusely reflected light can be achieved (see section [0060], para 3). Homogeneity of diffusely reflected light can be achieved within a reference aperture radius of R teaches that at least some of the diffuse light is directed from a position that is less than the lens aperture radius distance. The motivation of Arima is to enable more uniform diffusion angle distribution properties to be achieved (see section [0008]).
Danziger and Arima are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify Danziger by including the teaching from Arima in order to enable more uniform diffusion angle distribution properties to be achieved.
RE claim 2, Danziger in view of Arima disclose that wherein an entirety of the scattering optic is within the lens aperture radius distance from the lens optical axis (see Danziger, figures 6A/6B or 7A/7B; i.e., the scattering optic is within the lens aperture radius distance of lens 117 from eye lens 115 optic axis or scattering optic 105 is within the lens 106 aperture radius distance from the lens 106 optical axis).
RE claim 3, Danziger in view of Arima disclose that wherein the camera has an angle of view (see figures 6A/6B/3; i.e., camera 125 has an angle of view); and the scattering optic scatters light across the entire angle of view of the camera (see Danziger, figures 6A/6B/3; i.e., the scattering optic 105, scattering light across the entire angle of view of the camera 125).
RE claim 4, Danziger in view of Arima disclose that wherein the scattering optic is configured to direct the diffuse light towards a retina of the eye from a fixed position relative to the eye, wherein the scattering optic is configured to illuminate at least a portion of the retina regardless of a rotational orientation of the eye (see Danziger, figures 6A/6B/8; i.e., the scattering optic 117 to direct the diffuse light towards retina 121 of eye 150 from a fixed position relative to the eye 150, wherein the scattering optic 117 being configured to illuminate at least a portion of the retina 121 regardless of a rotational orientation of the eye 150).
RE claim 5, Danziger in view of Arima disclose that a waveguide, wherein the light source directs the light source into the waveguide (see Danziger, figures 6A/6B/8; i.e., the light source 1002 directing the light into the waveguide 120).
RE claim 6, Danziger in view of Arima disclose that wherein the waveguide comprises the scattering optic and the scattering optic comprises a diffusion plate comprising a plurality of scattering elements (see Danziger, figures 6A/6B and sections [0063], [0067]; i.e., the waveguide 120 comprising of diffusion plate 145 or waveguide 110 comprising of diffusion plate 140).
RE claim 13, Danziger in view of Arima disclose that wherein the light source comprises a collimated light emitting diode (LED) (see Danziger, figure 19; i.e., LED 400 or 410).
RE claim 14, Danziger in view of Arima disclose that the scattering optic comprises a reflective diffuse (see Danziger, sections [0111], [0110], [0052] and figures 6A/6B; i.e., element 145, element 140).
RE claim 16, Danziger in view of Arima disclose that wherein the light source and the scattering optic are within the chamber of the camera (see Danziger, figures 6A/6B/19), wherein the light source comprises a light emitting diode (LED) (see figure 19; i.e., LED 400/410); the scattering optic comprises a diffuser and a polarized beam splitter (see Danziger, figures 6A/6B; i.e., polarized beam splitter 105 and diffuser 106); wherein the LED directs the directed light through the diffuser, the diffuser scatters the directed light, and the polarized beam splitter reflects the scattered light in the diffuse directions (see Danziger, figures 17A/17B, 18A/18B and its associated depictions).
RE claim 17, Danziger in view of Arima disclose that wherein the scattered light has a first polarization that is perpendicular to a second polarization of the captured light (see Danziger, figures 18A/18B/20 and its associated depictions).
RE claim 18, Danziger in view of Arima disclose that wherein the camera, light source, and scattering optic are housed within a housing that is affixed to a frame portion of a head-mounted display (see Danziger, figure 5; i.e., HMD 100).
Claims 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danziger et al (US 2019/0056600), hereinafter as Danziger, in view of Arima et al (US 2020/0386919), hereinafter as Arima, and further in view of Coleman (USPN 8,177,408).
RE claim 7, Danziger in view of Arima disclose the invention substantially as claimed.
However, Danziger in view of Arima do not specifically disclose that wherein the plurality of scattering elements are etched into a surface of the waveguide.
From the same field of endeavor, Coleman teaches that a waveguide comprising of etched surface patterns for light scattering (see column 30 lines 6-27). The motivation of Coleman is to improve the uniformity, appearance, form factor, and light output distribution/direction of an optical element (see column 1 lines 13-17).
Danziger, Arima and Coleman are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify Danziger in view of Arima by including the teaching from Coleman in order to improve the uniformity, appearance, form factor, and light output distribution/direction of an optical element.
RE claim 8, Danziger in view of Arima disclose the invention substantially as claimed.
However, Danziger in view of Arima do not specifically disclose that wherein the plurality of scattering elements are particles injected into a surface of the waveguide.
From the same field of endeavor, Coleman teaches that a waveguide comprising of injected molded feature for light scattering (see column 30 lines 6-27). The motivation of Coleman is to improve the uniformity, appearance, form factor, and light output distribution/direction of an optical element (see column 1 lines 13-17).
Danziger, Arima and Coleman are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify Danziger in view of Arima by including the teaching from Coleman in order to improve the uniformity, appearance, form factor, and light output distribution/direction of an optical element.
RE claim 9, Danziger in view of Arima disclose the invention substantially as claimed.
However, Danziger in view of Arima do not specifically disclose that the waveguide comprises the scattering optic and the scattering optic comprises an embedded diffuser.
From the same field of endeavor, Coleman teaches that a waveguide comprising of embossed feature for light scattering (see column 30 lines 6-27). The motivation of Coleman is to improve the uniformity, appearance, form factor, and light output distribution/direction of an optical element (see column 1 lines 13-17).
Danziger, Arima and Coleman are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify Danziger in view of Arima by including the teaching from Coleman in order to improve the uniformity, appearance, form factor, and light output distribution/direction of an optical element.
RE claims 10, 11 and 12, Danziger in view of Arima disclose the invention substantially as claimed.
However, Danziger in view of Arima do not specifically disclose that wherein the waveguide comprises the scattering optic and the scattering optic comprises a multi-directional output coupler and positioned over an entirety of aperture or less.
From the same field of endeavor, Coleman teaches that a scattering optic comprising of multi-directional coupler and positioned over an entirety of aperture or less (see column 6 lines 39-46). The motivation of Coleman is to improve the uniformity, appearance, form factor, and light output distribution/direction of an optical element (see column 1 lines 13-17).
Danziger, Arima and Coleman are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify Danziger in view of Arima by including the teaching from Coleman in order to improve the uniformity, appearance, form factor, and light output distribution/direction of an optical element.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danziger et al (US 2019/0056600), hereinafter as Danziger, in view of Arima et al (US 2020/0386919), hereinafter as Arima, and further in view of Cadugan et al (US 2023/0333213), hereinafter as Cadugan.
RE claim 15, Danziger in view of Arima disclose the invention substantially as claimed.
However, Danziger in view of Arima do not specifically disclose that wherein the scattering optic comprises a mirror coating on the lens.
From the same field of endeavor, Cadugan teaches that a waveguide to capture light, having a mirrored surface to reflect light onto a first subpixel region (see section [0015]). The motivation of Cadugan is to detect the attenuated portion of a signal that is not directly imaged onto the detector’s sensitive area in waveguiding (see section [0005]).
Danziger, Arima and Cadugan are combinable because they are from the field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify Danziger in view of Arima by including the teaching from Cadugan in order to detect the attenuated portion of a signal that is not directly imaged onto the detector’s sensitive area in waveguiding.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-21, 23-24 are allowed. For reason of allowance, please refer to Applicants’ remarks filed on 03/30/2026.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication from the examiner should be directed to FRED TZENG whose telephone number is 571-272-7565. The examiner can normally be reached on weekdays from 2:0 pm to 10:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Boddie can be reached on 571-272-0666. The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are 571-273-8300 for regular communications and 571-273-7565 for After Final communications.
Informal 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/docs 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 (IN USA).
/FRED TZENG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2625
FFT
June 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights