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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments on 05/19/26 have been entered. The claim objection on claim 7 have been withdrawn in light of claim amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on pages 9-14, filed on 05/16/26 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant states claim 1 does not teach “the display functional layer surrounds the light-guiding structure.” The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claim does not require that the display functional layer completely encircle or enclose the light-guiding structure. Rather, the cited reference discloses that the micro-display is coupled to a micro-lens array located posteriorly to the micro-display. The term "coupled to" is a broad term that encompasses a variety of structural relationships, including configurations in which one component surrounds another, but it does not itself require or exclude such an arrangement. Thus, Applicant's argument improperly imports a narrow geometric limitation into the claim language.
Furthermore, the cited reference teaches that the micro-display and the micro-lens array are arranged together as cooperating optical components, with the micro-lens array positioned posterior to the micro-display. This disclosure is sufficient to establish the claimed relationship between the display functional layer and the light-guiding structure. Nothing in the claim requires the display functional layer to completely wrap around or enclose the light-guiding structure, and Applicant has not identified any claim language imposing such a requirement. Accordingly, Applicant's argument is not persuasive.
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 display functional layer (12) surrounds the light-guiding structure (¶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 a 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, 7, 9, 10, 14-22, 24, 25, and 30-37 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 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.”
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 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 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the limitations of the independent claims, in such a manner that a rejection under 35 USC 102 or 103 would be improper.
Regarding claim 4, the closest prior art Kubota et al. (US 20210031051) teaches an eyewear (fig. 1), comprising, a display functional layer (micro-displays 12); 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.), or wherein the display functional layer surrounds the light-guiding structure; and 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.).
However, regarding claim 4, the prior art Kubota taken either singly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest an eyewear comprising 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, in combination with all other claimed limitation of claim 4.
With respect to claim 5, this claim depend on claim 4 and are allowable at least for the reason stated supra.
Regarding claim 8, the closest prior art Kubota et al. (US 20210031051) 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.), or wherein the display functional layer surrounds the light-guiding structure,
However, regarding claim 8, the prior art Kubota taken either singly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest an eyewear comprising, wherein the display functional layer has a pixel region where light-emitting elements are provided, and the light-guiding structure and the pixel region at least partially overlap; 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; wherein the pixel region comprises pixel sub-regions, wherein the pixel sub- regions comprise a first pixel sub-region and a second pixel sub-region, wherein a distance between the first pixel sub-region and the second pixel sub-region is greater than a distance between two light-emitting elements within the pixel sub-region; and wherein the light-guiding groups comprise a first light-guiding group and a second light-guiding group, wherein the first light-guiding group overlaps with the first pixel sub-region, and the second light-guiding group overlaps with the second pixel sub-region, in combination with all other claimed limitation of claim 8.
Regarding claim 13, the closest prior art Kubota et al. (US 20210031051) teaches an eyewear (fig. 1), comprising, a display functional layer (micro-displays 12); 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.), or wherein the display functional layer surrounds the light-guiding structure.
However, regarding claim 13, the prior art Kubota taken either singly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest an eyewear comprising, wherein the light-guiding structure comprises microstructures, wherein the microstructures are convex lenses; and 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, in combination with all other claimed limitation of claim 13.
Regarding claim 26, the closest prior art Kubota et al. (US 20210031051) teaches an eyewear (fig. 1) comprising, a display functional layer (micro-displays 12); 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.), or wherein the display functional layer surrounds the light-guiding structure.
However, regarding claim 26, the prior art Kubota taken either singly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest an eyewear comprising, 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, in combination with all other claimed limitation of claim 26.
With respect to claims 27-29 , this claim depend on claim 26 and are allowable at least for the reason stated supra.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Guan et al. (US 20240385449) teaches a display near the eye that using a waveguide plate.
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 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 07/28/26
Prosecution Insights