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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 03/25/25 comply with provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the examiner considered the information disclosure statements.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein a distance between two adjacent light-guiding groups is greater than a distance between two microstructures within each(?) light-guiding group” should be “wherein a distance between two adjacent light-guiding groups is greater than a distance between two microstructures within each light-guiding group”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kubota et al. (US 20210031051).
Regarding claim 1, Kubota teaches an eyewear (fig. 1), comprising, a display functional layer (micro-displays 12); and a light-guiding structure (¶65, the micro-lens arrays are optically coupled with the displays), wherein the light-guiding structure (¶65, micro-lens array) is located at a side of the display functional layer (12) facing towards a viewing surface (¶65, the micro-lens arrays are coupled with the displays, so that they can efficiently extract light from the micro-displays, collimate the light and focus it before projecting them into the entrance pupil.).
Regarding claim 2, Kubota teaches the eyewear (fig. 1) according to claim 1, further comprising, a myopia-correction structure (discussed in ¶57, projecting a bundle of rays to the pupil of the eye, at an orientation that it forms a myopically defocused image at a desired location on the retina as described herein. In some embodiments, the one or more projection optics is mounted on or in the one or more correction optics, such that rays from the projection optics are refracted through the correction optics. The correction optics refract the rays from the projection optics to be convergent or divergent as helpful for emmetropia, Note: the correction optics and micro-optic array collectively form a structure that intentionally produces myopic defocus on the retina, which constitutes a myopia-correction structure, background information in ¶2 to ¶12) located at the side of the display functional layer (12) facing towards the viewing surface (¶57, the micro-displays and the micro-optic arrays are mounted immediately adjacent to each other on the same correction optic, and ¶57, the one or more projection optics is mounted on or in the one or more correction optics, such that rays from the projection optics are refracted through the correction optics, Note: the display functional layer (micro-display) is adjacent to and optically upstream of the correction optics, with light passing from the display through the correction optics toward the eye, placing the myopia-correction structure on the viewing-surface side of the display functional layer.).
Regarding claim 23, Kubota teaches the eyewear (fig. 1) according to claim 1, wherein the display functional layer (12) comprises a light-emitting element (¶88, micro-displays 12 may comprise micro-LEDS), wherein the light-emitting element is a light-emitting diode (¶88, micro-displays 12 may comprise micro-LEDS).
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 6, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota et al. (US 20210031051) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xie (US 20190057957).
Regarding claim 6, Kubota teaches the invention as set forth above but does not specifically teach the display functional layer has a pixel region where light-emitting elements are provided, wherein the light-guiding structure and the pixel region at least partially overlap. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Xie teaches the eyewear (fig. 1), wherein the display functional layer (light emitting elements 120) has a pixel region where light-emitting elements are provided (150 and 120; ¶31, form red/green/blue (RGB) pixels), wherein the light-guiding structure (microlens array 140) and the pixel region (150 and 120) at least partially overlap (shown in fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the eyewear of Kubota with the display functional layer has a pixel region where light-emitting elements are provided, wherein the light-guiding structure and the pixel region at least partially overlap of Xie, for the purpose of providing a full color display (¶31).
Regarding claim 11, Kubota teaches the invention as set forth above but does not specifically teach the display functional layer comprises light-emitting elements, the light-guiding structure comprises microstructures, and one microstructure corresponds to at least two light-emitting elements. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Xie teaches the eyewear (fig. 1), wherein the display functional layer (120) comprises light-emitting elements (light emitting elements 120), the light-guiding structure (140) comprises microstructures (shown in fig. 1, the microstructure is the microlens shape), and one microstructure corresponds to at least two light-emitting elements (shown in fig. 1, for every one microstructure which is the microlens has two light emitting elements 120). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the eyewear of Kubota with the display functional layer comprises light-emitting elements, the light-guiding structure comprises microstructures, and one microstructure corresponds to at least two light-emitting elements of Xie, for the purpose of providing a full color display (¶31).
Regarding claim 12, Kubota teaches the invention as set forth above but does not specifically teach the light-guiding structure comprises microstructures, wherein the microstructures are convex lenses. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Xie teaches the eyewear (fig. 1), wherein the light-guiding structure (140) comprises microstructures (shown in fig. 1 the microlens shape is the microstructure), wherein the microstructures are convex lenses (shown in fig. 1, 140 with microlens have convex lenses). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the eyewear of Kubota with the light-guiding structure comprises microstructures, wherein the microstructures are convex lenses of Xie, for the purpose of providing a full color display (¶31).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 7-10, 13-22, 24-37 are 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: the prior art does not disclose the claimed combination of limitations to warrant a rejection under 35 USC 102 or 103.
Regarding claim 3, the prior art does not disclose the claimed eyewear specifically including as the distinguishing features in combination with the other limitations the claimed “wherein the myopia-correction structure and the light-guiding structure are formed into one piece.”
Regarding claim 4, the prior art does not disclose the claimed eyewear specifically including as the distinguishing features in combination with the other limitations the claimed “wherein the light-guiding structure and the myopia-correction structure form an optical structure, and a media layer is configured between the optical structure and the display functional layer.”
Specifically, with respect to claim 5, is object to for the same reason as claim 4.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art does not disclose the claimed eyewear specifically including as the distinguishing features in combination with the other limitations the claimed “wherein the light-guiding structure comprises light-guiding groups, wherein each light-guiding group comprises microstructures, and wherein a distance between two adjacent light-guiding groups is greater than a distance between two microstructures within each(?) light-guiding group.”
Specifically, with respect to claim 8, is object to for the same reason as claim 7.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art does not disclose the claimed eyewear specifically including as the distinguishing features in combination with the other limitations the claimed “a myopia-correction structure, wherein the myopia-correction structure has a central region, the display functional layer has a pixel region, and the pixel region at least partially surrounds the central region.”
Regarding claim 10, the prior art does not disclose the claimed eyewear specifically including as the distinguishing features in combination with the other limitations the claimed “a myopia-correction structure, wherein the myopia-correction structure has a central region, the display functional layer has a pixel region, and the pixel region at least partially surrounds the central region.”
Regarding claim 13, the prior art does not disclose the claimed eyewear specifically including as the distinguishing features in combination with the other limitations the claimed “a myopia-correction structure, wherein the myopia-correction structure has a first surface facing towards the light-guiding structure, wherein the first surface is a cambered surface and has a geometric center; and wherein the convex lenses comprise a first convex lens and a second convex lens, wherein a distance between the first convex lens and the geometric center is different from a distance between the second convex lens and the geometric center, and the first convex lens and the second convex lens have different focal lengths.”
Regarding claim 14, the prior art does not disclose the claimed eyewear specifically including as the distinguishing features in combination with the other limitations the claimed “wherein the display functional layer has a pixel region comprising pixel sub-regions; and wherein the eyewear has a therapeutic mode, in which at least one pixel sub-region within the display functional layer emits light configured to show a functional pattern.”
Specifically, with respect to claim 15, is object to for the same reason as claim 14.
Specifically, with respect to claim 16, is object to for the same reason as claim 14.
Specifically, with respect to claim 17, is object to for the same reason as claim 14.
Specifically, with respect to claim 18, is object to for the same reason as claim 14.
Specifically, with respect to claim 19, is object to for the same reason as claim 14.
Specifically, with respect to claim 20, is object to for the same reason as claim 14.
Specifically, with respect to claim 21, is object to for the same reason as claim 14.
Specifically, with respect to claim 22, is object to for the same reason as claim 14.
Regarding claim 24, the prior art does not disclose the claimed eyewear specifically including as the distinguishing features in combination with the other limitations the claimed “wherein the display functional layer is a transparent display panel.”
Regarding claim 25, the prior art does not disclose the claimed eyewear specifically including as the distinguishing features in combination with the other limitations the claimed “wherein the display functional layer has a first cambered surface facing towards the light-guiding structure, and a second cambered surface facing away from a side of the light-guiding structure, wherein the first cambered surface matches the second cambered surface.”
Regarding claim 26, the prior art does not disclose the claimed eyewear specifically including as the distinguishing features in combination with the other limitations the claimed “a myopia-correction structure having a central region, wherein the display functional layer comprises a first connection part at least partially surrounding the central region, and at least one protrusion connected to the first connection part and protruding away from the central region.”
Specifically, with respect to claim 27, is object to for the same reason as claim 26.
Specifically, with respect to claim 28, is object to for the same reason as claim 26.
Specifically, with respect to claim 29, is object to for the same reason as claim 28.
Regarding claim 30, the prior art does not disclose the claimed eyewear specifically including as the distinguishing features in combination with the other limitations the claimed “a myopia-correction structure having a central region, wherein the display functional layer comprises at least one annular part, wherein the annular part is a non-closed ring and partially surrounds the central region.”
Specifically, with respect to claim 31, is object to for the same reason as claim 30.
Regarding claim 32, the prior art does not disclose the claimed eyewear specifically including as the distinguishing features in combination with the other limitations the claimed “a driver structure, wherein the display functional layer comprises a first end having a curved edge and comprising first pads, wherein the first pads are arranged in a shape of the curved edge of the first end; and the driver structure comprises second pads, wherein the second pads are arranged in the shape of the curved edges of the first end and are bound to the first pads.”
Regarding claim 33, the prior art does not disclose the claimed eyewear specifically including as the distinguishing features in combination with the other limitations the claimed “a driver structure; and one of a nose pad and an eyewear leg, wherein the driver structure has one end bound to the display functional layer, and another end extending into the nose pad or the eyewear leg.”
Regarding claim 34, the prior art does not disclose the claimed eyewear specifically including as the distinguishing features in combination with the other limitations the claimed “an eyewear frame comprising a straight border; and a driver structure, wherein the display functional layer comprises a second end having a straight edge, the straight edge is adjacent to the straight border; and the driver structure has one end bound to the second end and another end extending into the straight border.”
Regarding claim 35, the prior art does not disclose the claimed eyewear specifically including as the distinguishing features in combination with the other limitations the claimed “a driver structure, wherein the display functional layer comprises a first surface facing towards the light-guiding structure, a second surface facing away from the light-guiding structure, and a side surface connecting the first surface with the second surface, wherein first pads are provided on the side surface, the driver structure comprises second pads, and the first pads are bound to the second pads.”
Regarding claim 36, the prior art does not disclose the claimed eyewear specifically including as the distinguishing features in combination with the other limitations the claimed “wherein the display functional layer comprises light-emitting elements, wherein the light-emitting elements are arranged along a direction surrounding the light-guiding structure, and the light-guiding structure comprises a volume grating.”
Specifically, with respect to claim 37, is object to for the same reason as claim 36.
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 02/21/26