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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 5, 8, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (CN 109116577A, with reference made to provided machine translation, Zhang).
As per claim 1, Zhang teaches (in figures 1, 3, and 6) a contact lens (1), suitable for a head-mounted display device, comprising: a first optical structure layer (first, second, and third transmissive holographic gratings 104, 103, and 102), configured to receive an optical signal (paragraph 86), wherein the first optical structure layer is divided into a plurality of partitions (areas of first, second, and third transmissive holographic gratings 104, 103, and 102), and the partitions respectively have a plurality of structural bodies with different structures (first, second, and third transmissive holographic gratings 104, 103, and 102 which are formed to have different interference patterns such that each reflects only one of red, green, and blue light while transmitting the other colors, see paragraphs 18 and 20), and the structural bodies receive the optical signal and generate a plurality of imported optical signals (paragraph 33); and a second optical structure layer (substrate 105), overlapped with the first optical structure layer, configured to transmit the imported optical signals to a target area (paragraph 69) wherein each of the partitions is disposed on the second optical structure layer (areas of first, second, and third transmissive holographic gratings 104, 103, and 102 are all formed on substrate 105).
As per claim 2, Zhang teaches (in figures 1, 3, and 6) that the partitions (areas of first, second, and third transmissive holographic gratings 104, 103, and 102) comprises a first partition (area of the third transmissive holographic grating 102), a second partition (area of the first transmissive holographic grating 104) and a central partition (area of the second transmissive holographic grating 103), the structural bodies comprises a first structural body (third transmissive holographic grating 102), a second structural body (first transmissive holographic grating 104) and a third structural body (second transmissive holographic grating 103) corresponding to the first partition, the second partition and the central partition, wherein the central partition is located between the first partition and the second partition.
As per claim 5, Zhang teaches (in figures 1, 3, and 6) that the structural bodies provide different light refraction angles respectively (only light of one of red, blue, or green is diffracted by each of the structural bodies while the remained is transmitted/refracted and therefore have unique diffraction/refraction angles for a given wavelength of light, see paragraph 18).
As per claim 8, Zhang teaches (in figures 1, 3, and 6) a head-mounted display device, comprising: an image projector (display 3), configured to project an optical signal according to a projecting direction; and a contact lens (contact lens 1), set on an eyeball of a user, wherein a normal direction of the contact lens forms an incident angle (angle a, see paragraph 52) with the projection direction, the contact lens comprises: a first optical structure layer (first, second, and third transmissive holographic gratings 104, 103, and 102), configured to receive an optical signal (paragraph 86), wherein the first optical structure layer is divided into a plurality of partitions (areas of first, second, and third transmissive holographic gratings 104, 103, and 102), and the partitions respectively have a plurality of structural bodies with different structures (first, second, and third transmissive holographic gratings 104, 103, and 102 which are formed to have different interference patterns such that each reflects only one of red, green, and blue light while transmitting the other colors, see paragraphs 18 and 20), and the structural bodies receive the optical signal and generate a plurality of imported optical signals (paragraph 33); and a second optical structure layer (substrate 105), overlapped with the first optical structure layer, configured to transmit the imported optical signals to a target area (paragraph 69), wherein each of the partitions is disposed on the second optical structure layer (areas of first, second, and third transmissive holographic gratings 104, 103, and 102 are all formed on substrate 105).
As per claim 9, Zhang teaches (in figures 1, 3, and 6) that the partitions (areas of first, second, and third transmissive holographic gratings 104, 103, and 102) comprises a first partition (area of the third transmissive holographic grating 102), a second partition (area of the first transmissive holographic grating 104) and a central partition (area of the second transmissive holographic grating 103), the structural bodies comprises a first structural body (third transmissive holographic grating 102), a second structural body (first transmissive holographic grating 104) and a third structural body (second transmissive holographic grating 103) corresponding to the first partition, the second partition and the central partition, wherein the central partition is located between the first partition and the second partition.
As per claim 12, Zhang teaches (in figures 1, 3, and 6) that the structural bodies provide different light refraction angles respectively (only light of one of red, blue, or green is diffracted by each of the structural bodies while the remained is transmitted/refracted and therefore have unique diffraction/refraction angles for a given wavelength of light, see paragraph 18).
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.
Claim(s) 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 109116577A, with reference made to provided machine translation, Zhang) as applied to claims 2 and 9 respectively above and in further view of Gupta et al. (USP 5130857, Gupta).
As per claim 3, Zhang’s cited embodiment does not teach that the first structural body, the second structural body and the third structural body each include a continuous plurality of square structures, in a unit length, the numbers of the square structures in the first structural body, the second structural body and the third structural body are not equal.
However, Zhang teaches that forming the first to third structural bodies as surface relief gratings which include a continuous plurality of embossed structures is an equivalent structure for forming the transmissive holographic gratings (paragraph 25).
Gupta teaches (in figure 1) forming surface relief diffraction gratings (12) to comprise a continuous plurality of square structures and that the grating periods (d) thereof are result effective variables in that the 1st order diffraction angle is directly dependent on the grating periods and wavelength of light too be diffracted by square structures (Col. 2 lines 21-33).
Therefore, because these two gratings were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the gratings as surface relief gratings comprising a continuous plurality of concave-convex structures.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the grating periods and therefore the numbers of square structures in the first structural body, the second structural body and the third structural body to be different, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (See MPEP § 2144.05 (II) (A) and (B))
As per claim 10, Zhang’s cited embodiment does not teach that the first structural body, the second structural body and the third structural body each include a continuous plurality of square structures, in a unit length, the numbers of the square structures in the first structural body, the second structural body and the third structural body are not equal.
However, Zhang teaches that forming the first to third structural bodies as surface relief gratings which include a continuous plurality of concave-convex structures is an equivalent structure for forming the transmissive holographic gratings (paragraph 25).
Gupta teaches (in figure 1) forming surface relief diffraction gratings (12) to comprise a continuous plurality of square structures and that the grating periods (d) thereof are result effective variables in that the 1st order diffraction angle is directly dependent on the grating periods and wavelength of light too be diffracted by square structures (Col. 2 lines 21-33).
Therefore, because these two gratings were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the gratings as surface relief gratings comprising a continuous plurality of square structures.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the grating periods and therefore the numbers of square structures in the first structural body, the second structural body and the third structural body to be different, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (See MPEP § 2144.05 (II) (A) and (B))
Claim(s) 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 109116577A, with reference made to provided machine translation, Zhang) and Gupta et al. (USP 5130857, Gupta) as applied to claims 3 and 10 respectively above and in further view of Tanaka et al. (US Pub. 20040233533, Tanaka).
As per claims 4 and 11, Zhang in view of Gupta does not teach that in the first structural body, the second structural body and the third structural body, the heights of the square structures are not equal.
Tanaka teaches (in figures 3, 4A, and 4B) forming surface relief diffraction gratings (13) to comprise a continuous plurality of square structures and that the heights (h) of convex square structures in diffraction gratings are result effective variables in that the 1st order diffraction efficiency is directly dependent on the height and wavelength of light too be diffracted (see figures 4A and 4B and paragraph 44).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the heights of the square structures in the first structural body, the second structural body and the third structural body to be different, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (See MPEP § 2144.05 (II) (A) and (B))
Claim(s) 6-7 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 109116577A, with reference made to provided machine translation, Zhang) as applied to claims 1 and 8 respectively above and in further view of de Juan, JR. et al. (US Pub. 20130077044, de Juan).
As per claim 6, Zhang does not specifically teach a third optical structure layer, overlapped with the second optical structure layer, configured to fit with an eyeball of a user, wherein the second optical structure layer is disposed between the first optical structure layer and the third optical structure layer.
However, de Juan teaches (in figure 1C2B) providing a third optical structure layer (wettable surface coating 134), overlapped with a second optical structure layer (coupling component 100B), configured to fit with an eyeball of a user, wherein the second optical structure layer is disposed between a first optical structure layer (optical component 100A) and the third optical structure layer in order to enhance user comfort by lubricating the eye when user blinks (paragraph 89).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the third optical structure layer from de Juan in the device of Zhang in order to enhance user comfort.
As per claim 7, Zhang teaches in figures 1, 3, and 6) that the target area is a pupil area of the eyeball of the user (paragraph 69).
As per claim 13, Zhang does not specifically teach a third optical structure layer, overlapped with the second optical structure layer, configured to fit with an eyeball of a user, wherein the second optical structure layer is disposed between the first optical structure layer and the third optical structure layer.
However, de Juan teaches (in figure 1C2B) providing a third optical structure layer (wettable surface coating 134), overlapped with a second optical structure layer (coupling component 100B), configured to fit with an eyeball of a user, wherein the second optical structure layer is disposed between a first optical structure layer (optical component 100A) and the third optical structure layer in order to enhance user comfort by lubricating the eye when user blinks (paragraph 89).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the third optical structure layer from de Juan in the device of Zhang in order to enhance user comfort.
As per claim 14, Zhang teaches in figures 1, 3, and 6) that the target area is a pupil area of the eyeball of the user (paragraph 69).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., wherein each of the partitions is disposed directly on the second optical structure layer) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In the instant case, and as shown in the rejection above Zhang teaches (in figures 1, 3, and 6) that each of the partitions (areas of first, second, and third transmissive holographic gratings 104, 103, and 102) are stacked on the second optical structure layer (substrate 105) and therefore meet the current limitation of “wherein each of the partitions is disposed on the second optical structure layer”. Applicant’s argument is therefore unpersuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER P GROSS whose telephone number is (571)272-5660. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm EST.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571) 272-9791. 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.
/ALEXANDER P GROSS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871