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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 4 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 4th, 2026 has been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed August 4th, 2026 has been entered.
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 1-6 are 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 independent claim 1, the limitation “when an imaging system centered on an imaging system axis is positioned proximate the eye-location and forms an image of the virtual image corresponding to the first virtual image location: (i) when the imaging system axis is substantially coincident with the optical system axis, the image has a first image resolution; and (ii) when the imaging system is rotated so that the imaging system axis is substantially coincident with a first field axis extending between the imaging system and the first virtual image location at the first field angle, the image has a second image resolution greater than the first image resolution” raises clarity issues. It is unclear how this limitation should be interpreted and it is unclear as to what the metes and bounds of the above claim limitations are and would be needed to meet the above claim limitations.
It is unclear whether the imaging system is a required element in the limitations of the claim or not. It is unclear whether an imaging system, such as a camera, is being claimed instead of an eye (a different invention than previously examined and seemingly directed towards unelected invention Group III) or whether the imaging system is mentioned in the claim just to describe the various properties of light projected through the optical axis (assumed). Since page 10 lines 12-24 indicate an optical perceiving system which can be either an imaging system or an eye, it is assumed that an imaging system, i.e., a camera, is not part of the invention, per se, but rather is being used to describe the optical properties of the lenses – therefore, only an eye is required by the claim.
For the purposes of examination, examiner assumes that an imaging system is not required to meet the limitations of the claim and the limitation of an imaging system is met by the presence of an eye.
Claims 2-6 are dependent on claim 1 and therefore inherit the same issues.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 4th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 112(f) interpretation and 112(b) rejections of claims 1 and 3, applicant’s arguments in combination with the amendments are sufficient to overcome the 112(f) interpretation and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the office action of June 8th, 2026. However, a new 112(b) rejection is made in light of the amendments, see above.
Regarding the 102/103 rejections of claims 1 and 3-6, applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are appreciated. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues that A. Etter does not anticipate amended claim 1. Specifically, applicant argues Etter does not disclose the comparison of the first position in which the imaging system axis is coincident with the optical system axis with the second position in which the imaging system axis is coincident with a field axis. However, the examiner disagrees. Etter discloses an identical structure to what is claimed – a display, an eye, a first lens with a first major surface comprising a convex central portion surrounded by an annular concave outer portion and a second major surface being convex, and a second lens with a third major surface being substantially planar and a fourth major surface being convex (the imaging system is assumed to not be required, see 112(b) rejection above; further it is stated in the remarks on pages 6-7 that it is the lenses that cause these properties, not the presence of an imaging system). Therefore, since the structure recited in Etter is substantially identical to that of claim 1, the claimed properties and functions – the second image resolution being greater than the first image resolution) are presumed to be inherent, see MPEP 2112.01(I).
Applicant argues that B. The inherency rationale does not apply. Specifically, applicant argues that no showing of inherency has been made, since amended claim 1 no longer relies on human retinal perception as the operative comparison, therefore the prior inherency rationale does not carry over. However, a new inherency rationale is made for the new limitations, see rejection below.
Applicant argues that C. Claims 3-6 are not anticipated. Specifically, applicant argues that claims 3-6 depend from claim 1. However, claim 1 is still anticipated by Etter, see rejection below. Applicant additionally argues Etter does not disclose the claimed relationship for all first field angles from 5 degrees to 30 degrees. However, Etter discloses an identical structure to what is claimed, therefore this claimed relationship must necessarily also be satisfied by Etter, see MPEP 2112.01(I).
Regarding the 102/103 rejections of claim 2, applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are appreciated. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues that A. Claim 2 is not anticipated by Etter. Specifically, applicant argues the claimed S1/S2 range, the claimed S1/S4 range, and the best fourth-order polynomial fit to each of those relationships having the claimed r-squared threshold are not disclosed by Etter and cannot be presumed to be inherent, and that it has not been shown why it would be inherent. However, examiner disagrees. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent, see MPEP 2112.01(I). Etter discloses a display, and eye, a first lens with a first major surface comprising a convex central portion surrounded by an annular concave outer portion and a second major surface being convex, and a second lens with a third major surface being substantially planar and a fourth major surface being convex, therefore the claimed cross-surface ratio relationships and polynomial-fit behavior, i.e. the properties, are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2112. Examiner respectfully invites applicant to provide evidence showing that these specific ranges are not disclosed by Etter.
Applicant argues that B. Claim 2 is not obvious under Aller. Specifically, applicant argues that the claimed ranges are not mere conventional optimizations of lens thickness or power and they are not result-effective variables. However, examiner disagrees. The sag variables are result-effective variables. One of ordinary skill in the art would know that if one surface is changed, it would need to be balanced by changing another surface. Balancing ratios is common knowledge to one of ordinary skill. Applicant’s specification does not appear to disclose that these ranges are met for any particular reason and they appear to be an engineering choice. It appears that the invention would perform equally well just outside of the ranges. One of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the sag in order to obtain a desired optical power for a certain focusing, while keeping spacing in mind to keep the apparatus compact – if the sags are too large, the apparatus would become bigger and unwieldy.
Applicant argues that C. Claim 2 is tied to the claimed optical behavior. Specifically, applicant argues that the claimed sag relationships defines a coordinated lens-shaping regime directed to a specific off-axis imaging effect and is not a routine design choice. This does not appear to be stated in the specification. Examiner respectfully invites applicant to point out where in the specification it is stated that these specific values are what cause the off-axis imaging effect. The off-axis imaging effect, which examiner assumes to refer to the limitation as stated in claim 1 “the image has a second image resolution greater than the first image resolution,” is a result of the claimed structure of claim 1, according to applicant’s remarks on page 6-7. Specifically, the structure of a display, an eye, a first lens with a first major surface comprising a convex central portion surrounded by an annular concave outer portion and a second major surface being convex, and a second lens with a third major surface being substantially planar and a fourth major surface being convex, according to applicant’s remarks, are the structure which causes this off-axis imaging effect. If these claimed ranges are critical for the optical system to have the claimed function and property of the second image resolution being greater than the first image resolution, examiner recommends that these limitations should be included in the independent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102 & 103
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.
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) 1 and 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Etter et al. (WO 2018211405 A2), hereinafter Etter.
Regarding independent claim 1, Etter discloses an optical system (500; Fig. 1A; pg. 5 lines 32-36) comprising an optical system axis (520; Fig. 1A; pg. 11 lines 32-36), a display (55; Fig. 1A; pg. 6 lines 28-33) and at least one lens (10, 20; Fig. 1A; pg. 11 lines 32-36), the optical system forming a virtual image of an image emitted by the display (55) for viewing by an eye (510; Fig. 1A), when the eye is positioned proximate an eye-location on an eye-side of the optical system (Fig. 1A),
wherein the at least one lens (10, 20) comprises a first optical lens (20d; Figs. 1A, 2D; page 7 line 21 – page 8 line 18) comprising opposing first (22d; Fig. 2D) and second major surfaces (21d; Fig. 2D) and facing a second optical lens (10; Fig. 1A) comprising opposing third (12; Fig. 1A) and fourth major surfaces (11; Fig. 1A), the second (21d) and third major surfaces (12) facing each other (Figs. 1A, 2D), the first major surface (22d) comprising a convex central portion surrounded by an annular concave outer portion (Fig. 2D; page 8 lines 15-18), the second major surface (21d) being convex (Fig. 2D), the third major surface (12) being substantially planar (Fig. 1A), and the fourth major surface (11) being convex (Fig. 1A),
such that for a first virtual image location at a first field angle of 5 degrees to 30 degrees relative to the optical system axis, when an imaging system centered on an imaging system axis is positioned proximate the eye-location and forms an image of the virtual image corresponding to the first virtual image location (Figs. 1, 5):
(i) when the imaging system axis is substantially coincident with the optical system axis, the image has a first image resolution (inherent that there would be a first image resolution); and
(ii) when the imaging system is rotated so that the imaging system axis is substantially coincident with a first field axis extending between the imaging system and the first virtual image location at the first field angle, the image has a second image resolution greater than the first image resolution (inherent; the structure of the optical system is substantially identical to what is claimed, therefore it must have the same function, see MPEP 2112.01(I))1.
Regarding claim 3, Etter discloses the optical system of claim 1, as set forth above. Etter further discloses the second image resolution is greater than the first image resolution for all first field angles from 5 degrees to 30 degrees (inherent; the structure of the optical system is substantially identical to what is claimed, therefore it must have the same function, see MPEP 2112.01(I)).
Regarding claim 4, Etter discloses the optical system of claim 1, as set forth above. Etter further discloses one or more of a partial reflector (30; Fig. 1A; pg. 9 lines 35-38), a reflective polarizer (40; Fig. 1A; pg. 10 lines 21-38), and an optical retarder (50; Fig. 1A; pg. 11 lines 8-17).
Regarding claim 5, Etter discloses the optical system of claim 1, as set forth above. Etter further discloses the optical system axis is folded (Fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 6, Etter discloses the optical system of claim 1, as set forth above. Etter further discloses the optical system axis is folded so that a first segment of the system axis substantially coincides with a different second segment of the system axis (Fig. 1A).
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by, or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Etter (WO 2018211405 A2)2.
Regarding claim 2, Etter discloses the optical system of claim 1, as set forth above. Etter further discloses the at least one lens (10, 20) comprises a first optical lens (20; Fig. 1A) comprising opposing first and second major surfaces and facing a second optical lens (10; Fig. 1A) comprising opposing third and fourth major surfaces, the second and third major surfaces facing each other (Fig. 1A), the first through fourth major surfaces having respective sags S1-S4 (pgs. 7-8), wherein each of the sags is defined by:
S
=
c
r
2
1
+
1
-
1
+
k
c
2
r
2
+
α
2
r
4
+
α
3
r
6
+
α
4
r
8
where c is 1/radius of curvature of the major surface, k is a conic constant of the surface, r is a distance from the optical system axis, and a is an aspheric deformation constant,
wherein the first major surface (22d; Fig. 2d) comprises a convex central portion surrounded by an annular concave outer portion (Fig. 2d), the second major surface (21d; Fig. 2d) is convex (Fig. 2d), the third major surface (12; Fig. 1A) is substantially planar (Fig. 1A), and the fourth major surface (11; Fig. 1A) is convex (Fig. 1A).
Etter further discloses for r extending from about 1 mm to at least about 25 mm: -0.7 ≤ S1/S2 ≤ 1; -0.2 ≤ S1/S4 ≤ 0.4; and a best fourth-order polynomial fit to each of the S1/S2 and S1/S4 has an r-squared value greater than about 0.95 (inherent given structure and function, see Figs. 1A, 2D)3.
In the alternative, if Etter’s invention does not inherently have for r extending from about 1 mm to at least about 25 mm: -0.7 ≤ S1/S2 ≤ 1; -0.2 ≤ S1/S4 ≤ 0.4; and a best fourth-order polynomial fit to each of the S1/S2 and S1/S4 has an r-squared value greater than about 0.95, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case Etter discloses all of the claimed elements of an optical system, fulfilling the general conditions of the claim. One would be motivated to set the S1/S2, S1/S4, and the r-squared values to satisfy the above expressions for the purpose of efficiently correcting spherical aberration and having more focusing power with keeping the weight and size of the apparatus compact.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the lens surfaces to satisfy the above expressions for the purpose of efficiently correcting spherical aberration and having more focusing power with keeping the weight and size of the apparatus compact.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. D'Amico et al. (US 9979956 B1) discloses a head-mounted display with a display, an optical system, and a camera. Thibault (M.Sc., Ph.D., Eng, Simon Thibault. Novel Compact Panomorph Lens Based Vision System for Monitoring Around a Vehicle. ImmerVision, 2020, https://www.immervision.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Automotive-WP-2008-Novel-Compact-panomorph-lens.pdf.) discloses a lens which with an image wherein the resolution on the border is greater than the center resolution.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATASHA NIGAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5423. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-4.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571)272-2333. 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.
/NATASHA NIGAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 September 29th, 2026
/George G. King/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
1 Examiner additionally notes that in the remarks of August 4th, 2026 on pages 6-7, applicant states that the claimed difference in resolution is an optical property of the recited lens structure of claim 1. Therefore, since Etter has the same structure as what is claimed in claim 1, it must also perform the same function and have the same properties.
2 Where applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103. "There is nothing inconsistent in concurrent rejections for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 and for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 n.4, 195 USPQ 430, 433 n.4 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112 III.
3 The express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. "The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness." In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995), see MPEP 2112.
