DETAILED ACTION
Response to Remarks
1. Applicant’s remarks (see pgs. 9-13 of Remarks), filed 05/12/2026, with respect to the prior art rejection of claims 1-2 and 5-12 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive by virtue of Applicant’s arguments combined with the amendments to the independent claims (see amended claims 1 and 8 filed 05/12/2026). Therefore, these grounds of rejection have been withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) filed on 03/03/2026 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and is/are being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because:
The stricken-through and underlined portions of the preliminary claim amendments filed 05/12/2026 are written in a light color font (reproduced below), due to what appears to be a Markup review version of a .docx file.
PNG
media_image1.png
739
773
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant must use a permanent dark ink (preferably black colored font) for strike-through, double-bracketed, and underlined portions. Please consult 37 C.F.R. 1.52, Sections (a)(1)(iv) and (a)(1)(v).
For purposes of legibility and reproducibility of the preliminary amendments to the claims, the Examiner also respectfully requests an accompanying clean version of the claims filed 05/12/2026 in black colored font without markings, as required by 37 C.F.R. 1.125 and as stated in MPEP § 608.01(q). Applicant’s cooperation in this matter is appreciated.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 5-12 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.
Claims 1 and 8 recite the limitation: “adjusting relative positions of an AR optical machine and an AR lens of an AR head-mounted device…”. It is unclear what is meant by the term “AR optical machine”, since such a term does not correspond to any structure/element/material within the instant disclosure nor is it a term of the art. The specification provides some exemplary language for “an AR lens (such as a waveguide sheet)” (see ¶0059 of instant specification (PG-PUB) US 20240337853 A1), but fails to explain and/or elucidate what the AR optical machine refers to. The instant FIG. 4 shows the optical machine as a generic box within a control logic diagram, thereby also failing to provide clarity. The meaning of every term used in a claim should be apparent from the specification at the time the application is filed. Claim language may not be "ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear in describing and defining the claimed invention." Applicants are required to make clear and precise the terms that are used to define the invention whereby the metes and bounds of the claimed invention can be ascertained. See MPEP § 2173.03 citing In re Cohn, 438 F.2d 989, 169 USPQ 95 (CCPA 1971) and MPEP § 2173.05(a) citing In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1311, 110 USPQ2d 1785, 1787 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The Examiner respectfully suggests that the AR optical machine structure be clarified such that that the meaning of the term may be ascertainable by reference to the specification.
Claims 2, 4-7 and 9-12 inherit the deficiencies of Claim 1, and are thus rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2 and 5-12 would be allowable if the rejections set forth in this Office action are overcome.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claim 1 (and claim 8), the best prior art of Choubey et al. (US 2020/0394830 A1) alone and/or in combination with Salter et al. (US 2014/0152558 A1) teaches:
A display calibration method for a head-mounted device, comprising: controlling a camera to take a first eye image when a user wears the head-mounted device; determining a human eye gazing position according to the first eye image, wherein the human eye gazing position is a position of a human eye gazing point on the head-mounted device; retrieving a preset gazing position of the head-mounted device and calculating positional deviation information of the preset gazing position compared to the human eye gazing position; and adjusting a screen display position of the head-mounted device according to the positional deviation information, wherein the adjusting a screen display position of the head-mounted device according to the positional deviation information comprises: determining a coordinate offset of a display screen according to the positional deviation information, and generating the control command according to the coordinate offset of the display screen
However, the best prior art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest:
the adjusting a screen display position of the head-mounted device according to the positional deviation information comprises: determining a coordinate offset of a display screen according to the positional deviation information, and generating the control command according to the coordinate offset of the display screen and adjusting relative positions of an AR optical machine and an AR lens of an AR head-mounted device by sending the control command to a stepper motor, so as to correct an image display error caused by deformation of the head-mounted device.
Given the embodiments of Choubey and/or Salter, one of ordinary skill in the art would not find it obvious to modify the construction of the display calibrating apparatus/method to arrive at the cumulatively claimed configuration satisfying the combination of conditions recited directly above. Thus, the best prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach the cumulative conditions of claims 1-2, 5-7 and 9-12 further satisfying the claimed features of the apparatus.
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 extension fee 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 SAMANVITHA SRIDHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-0082. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1700 (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, BUMSUK WON can be reached on 571-272-2713. 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.
/SAMANVITHA SRIDHAR/ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights