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 .
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the claims recite “light emitter” (particularly “a light emitter comprising one or more processors”) which do not appear within the body of the specification. The examiner respectfully suggests amending the claims to match the terminology of the specification so as to fix this problem without raising any issues of support for the amendments. See below for interpretations used for examination.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the light emitter comprising one or more processors must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. The examiner respectfully suggests amending the claims to match the terminology of the specification so as to fix this problem without raising any issues of support for the amendments.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“one or more processors configured to: acquire visual acuity information of an eye; adjust, according to the visual acuity information at least either a beam diameter or a beam divergence angle of image laser light; and project the image laser light onto a retina in the eye” in claim 1;
“an image data output unit that is configured to change a resolution on the image plane according to the relationship between the focal distance and the distance to the object in the three-dimensional space and further configured to generate data of the display image” in claim 8; and
“the image display method comprising: processing image laser light indicative of a display image based on image data; acquiring visual acuity information regarding of an eye; adjusting, according to the visual acuity information, at least either a beam diameter or a beam divergence angle of the image laser light; and projecting the image laser light onto a retina in the eye” in claim 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1 (and its dependents) “a light emitter comprising one or more processors” amounts to prohibited new matter. The term “light emitter” does not appear in the specification. Further, the light sources discussed in the specification are laser sources, e.g. figures 4 & 12 image laser light source 50 and reference laser light source 56; and figure 10 image/reference laser light source 120. These elements are disclosed to be separate from any processors, e.g. image data output unit 10 including a central processing unit (CPU) 23 and a graphics processing unit (GPU) 24. Further, light emitters, per se¸ do not inherently include processor(s) that “acquire visual acuity information of an eye; adjust, according to the visual acuity information at least either a beam diameter or a beam divergence angle of image laser light”. See claim interpretation section above and claim rejections under 112 below for interpretations.
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 1-11 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 claim 1 (and its dependents) “a light emitter comprising one or more processors configured to …” raises clarity issues. It is unclear if the light emitter includes processor(s) or if the image display system includes a light emitter and processor(s). The term “light emitter” does not appear in the specification. Further, the light sources discussed in the specification are laser sources, e.g. figures 4 & 12 image laser light source 50 and reference laser light source 56; and figure 10 image/reference laser light source 120. These elements are disclosed to be separate from any processors, e.g. image data output unit 10 including a central processing unit (CPU) 23 and a graphics processing unit (GPU) 24. Further, light emitters, per se¸ do not inherently include processor(s) that “acquire visual acuity information of an eye; adjust, according to the visual acuity information at least either a beam diameter or a beam divergence angle of image laser light”. For purposes of examination the examiner will use “a light emitter and one or more processors configured to …”
Claim limitations:
“one or more sensors … further configured to acquire distances to reflective surfaces of the eye according to a result of the detection” in claim 2 (and its dependents);
“the light emitter is configured to acquire the information regarding the visual acuity according to a distance between the reflective surfaces: in claim 2 (and its dependents);
“the light emitter is further configured to: acquire a crystalline lens thickness or an eye axial length to estimate the visual acuity of the user; and adjust at least either the beam diameter or the beam divergence angle of the image laser light according to the visual acuity” in claim 4;
“the light emitter is configured to: acquire a crystalline lens thickness to estimate a focal distance of the eye; and change at least either the beam diameter or the beam divergence angle of the image laser light on an image plane according to a relationship between the focal distance and a distance to an object in a three-dimensional space to be displayed” in claim 5 (and its dependents);
“light emitter is configured to adjust at least either the beam diameter or the beam divergence angle in such a manner that an object that is present in the three-dimensional space and that is positioned within a predetermined range from a position corresponding to the focal distance is visually recognized with a higher resolution than other objects in the three- dimensional space” in claim 6;
“one or more sensors … further configured to acquire distances to reflective surfaces of the eye according to a result of the detection” in claim 7;
“the light emitter is further configured to: acquire a data set regarding the distances to the plurality of reflective surfaces, at intervals shorter than intervals at which a frame of a video is displayed by the image laser light; and estimates a focal distance using the data set” in claim 7;
“the light emitter is configured to detect the reference laser light reflected from the eye, at a position circumscribing an outlet port that is configured to allow the image laser light and the reference laser light reflected from the scanning mirror emitted” in claim 10; and
“the light emitter is configured to: acquire a gaze point by acquiring two-dimensional distribution of crystalline lens thicknesses, and change at least either the beam diameter or the beam divergence angle of the image laser light on an image plane according to the gaze point” in claim 11.
have been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it is unclear if claimed structures (e.g. a light emitter) is capable of the claimed functions (e.g. acquiring distances, calculating lens thicknesses, acquiring data from hardware, focusing light according to analysis), and if so what steps or addition/inherent structures are present. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Given the lack of support in the specification for “a light emitter comprising one or more processors” and the interpretation set forth above, for purposes of examination the examiner will interpret functional limitations of acquiring, calculating, determining, etcetera as functions of the one or more processors in the image display system and will be interpreted such computer-implemented means-plus-function claim limitation as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f)1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 8-9 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. foreign patent document CN217787507, using US Patent Application Publication 2023/0034562 as an English translation, in view of Bar-Zeev US Patent Application Publication 2012/0113092, of record.
Regarding claim 1, insofar as it is understood, Jiang discloses an image display system (title e.g. figures 1-2 near eye display/NED system 100) comprising: a light emitter (e.g. near eye displays 106 and/or emitter 202 in near eye sensors 108) and one or more processors (e.g. processing unit 120) configured to: acquire visual acuity information of an eye (inter alia abstract “near eye sensor mounted on the main body and configured to measure user eye parameters”); adjust, according to the visual acuity information at least either a beam diameter or a beam divergence angle of image light (inter alia abstract “configured to generate a display control signal based at least on the user eye parameters, wherein the display control signal drives the first near eye display and the second near eye display” & paragraph [0020] discloses parameters may include focus range, sphere correction & cylinder correction indicating focal adjustments and is at least a functional equivalent); and project the image light onto a retina in the eye (inter alia abstract “first image projected on a first retina”).
Jaing does not disclose the image light is laser light.
Bar-Zeev teaches a similar image display system including an eyeball state acquisition section that acquires information regarding a state of an eye of a user (e.g. eye tracking assembly 134); a beam control section that adjusts (e.g. variable virtual focus adjuster 135), according to the information regarding the state of the eye, a beam state of image (inter alia abstract “focal region of the user is tracked, and a virtual object within the user focal region is displayed to appear in the focal region. As the user changes focus between virtual objects, they appear to naturally move in and out of focus as real objects in a physical environment would. The change of focus for the virtual object images is caused by changing a focal region of light processing elements in an optical path of a microdisplay assembly of the augmented reality display system”) and an image projection section that projects the image light onto a retina of the user (e.g. microdisplay 120 paragraph [0057] notes an exemplar 120 can be a PicoP™ engine from Microvision, Inc. emits light beamed directly into the eye), and and further teaches the light beamed into the eye is laser light (paragraph [0057]) for the purpose of using a light source provided in the commercially available display unit. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the image display system as disclosed by Jiang to have the image light be laser light as taught by Bar-Zeev for the purpose of using a commercially available display unit including a laser source.
Regarding claim 2, insofar as it is understood, the combination of Jiang as modified by Bar-Zeev disclose the image display system according to claim 1, as set forth above. Jiang further discloses wherein the light emitter further comprises: a reference light source (e.g. 202) configured to emit reference laser light (paragraph [0040] “202 is a laser diode” e.g. light 206) to the eye (e.g. see figure 2); and one or more sensors (e.g. detector 204) configured to detect the reference laser light reflected from the eye (e.g. see figure 2) and further configured to acquire distances to reflective surfaces of the eye according to a result of the detection (inter alia paragraph [0039] discloses 108 is a time of flight sensor, which inherently measures distance), and wherein the light emitter is configured to acquire the information regarding the visual acuity according to a distance between the reflective surfaces (inter alia abstract “near eye sensor mounted on the main body and configured to measure user eye parameters”).
Regarding claim 4, insofar as it is understood, the combination of Jiang as modified by Bar-Zeev disclose the image display system according to claim 1, as set forth above. Jiang further discloses wherein the light emitter is further configured to: acquire a crystalline lens thickness or an eye axial length to estimate the visual acuity of the user (inter alia paragraph [0024] “configured to capture or measure user eye parameters … may include one or more of cornea thickness, cornea curvature, pupil diameter, lens thickness …”); and adjust at least either the beam diameter or the beam divergence angle of the image laser light according to the visual acuity (as set forth above).
Regarding claim 5, insofar as it is understood, the combination of Jiang as modified by Bar-Zeev disclose the image display system according to claim 1, as set forth above. Jiang further discloses wherein the light emitter is configured to: acquire a crystalline lens thickness to estimate a focal distance of the eye (inter alia paragraph [0024] “configured to capture or measure user eye parameters … may include one or more of cornea thickness, cornea curvature, pupil diameter, lens thickness, focus range, interpupillary distance (IPD), sphere (i.e., the lens power needed to see clearly if nearsighted or farsighted), cylinder (i.e., the lens power needed to correct astigmatism), and the like”); and change at least either the beam diameter or the beam divergence angle of the image laser light on an image plane according to a relationship between the focal distance and a distance to an object in a three-dimensional space to be displayed (as set forth above).
Regarding claim 8, insofar as it is understood, the combination of Jiang as modified by Bar-Zeev disclose the image display system according to claim 5, as set forth above. Jiang further discloses an image data output unit (e.g. figure 5 microcontroller unit/MCU 502) that is configured to change a resolution on the image plane according to the relationship between the focal distance and the distance to the object in the three-dimensional space and further configured to generate data of the display image (inherent for a system that changes the image based on the measured eye parameters).
Regarding claim 9, insofar as it is understood, the combination of Jiang as modified by Bar-Zeev disclose the image display system according to claim 2, as set forth above. Jaing does not disclose it is further comprising: a scanning mirror configured to reflect the image laser light in such a manner that a destination of the image laser light is two-dimensionally scanned over the retina, and also further configured to reflect and deliver the reference laser light to the eye. Bar-Zeev further teaches a scanning mirror that reflects the image laser light in such a manner that a destination of the image laser light is two-dimensionally scanned over the retina, and also reflects and delivers the reference laser light to the eyeball (paragraph [0057] “a PicoP™ engine from Microvision, Inc. emits a laser signal with a micro mirror steering … beamed directly into the eye”) for the purpose of using a light source provided in the commercially available display unit. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the image display system as disclosed by the combination of Jiang as modified by Bar-Zeev to have a scanning mirror configured to reflect the image laser light in such a manner that a destination of the image laser light is two-dimensionally scanned over the retina, and also further configured to reflect and deliver the reference laser light to the eye as further taught by Bar-Zeev for the purpose of using a commercially available display unit including a laser source.
Regarding claim 12, insofar as it is understood, under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986) see MPEP 2112.02. Since claim 12 recites the normal use of the device in claim 1 claim 12 is rejected as inherent.
Claim(s) 3, 6-7 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. foreign patent document CN217787507, using US Patent Application Publication 2023/0034562 as an English translation, in view of Bar-Zeev US Patent Application Publication 2012/0113092, of record, and in further view of Lychagov et al. US Patent Application Publication 2022/0155599, of record.
Regarding claim 3, insofar as it is understood, the combination of Jiang as modified by Bar-Zeev disclose the image display system according to claim 2, as set forth above. Jiang and Bar-Zeev do not disclose or teach wherein the reference light source is configured to emit the reference laser light to the eye along a light path of the image laser light.
Lychagov teaches a similar image display system (title e.g. figure 13 head-mounted display 20) including an eyeball state acquisition section (e.g. eye accommodation distance determining device seen in figure 11) that acquires information regarding a state of an eye of a user and adjusts the image seen by the user using said information (paragraph [0113] “adjustable focal length rendering system 21 is connected with the eye accommodation distance determining device and receives a signal from it about an eye accommodation distance determined by the eye accommodation distance determining device . At the same time, the rendering system 21 is configures to adjust focal length based on the accommodation distance determined”); wherein a distance acquisition section (e.g. the interferometer of eye accommodation distance determining device seen in figure 11) that detects (e.g. “signal detection” a.k.a. detector 15 seen in figure 11) the reference laser light (e.g. light from 18) reflected from the eyeball and acquires distances to a plurality of reflective surfaces of the eyeball according to a result of the detection (inter alia abstract “laser beams reflected from eye reflecting surfaces, a signal processer configured to generate a signal spectrum using each of said plurality of interferometric signals, a distance determiner configured to determine distances to the eye reflecting surfaces”), wherein the eyeball state acquisition section acquires the information regarding the state of the eye according to distances between the plurality of reflective surfaces (inter alia abstract); and further teaches the reference light emission section emits the reference laser light to the eyeball through a path shared by the image laser light (e.g. figure 13 shows reflected/measurement light and virtual object/image light superimposed) for the purpose of having all of the electronics in the temple. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the image display system as disclosed by the combination of Jiang as modified by Bar-Zeev to have the reference light emission section emits the reference laser light to the eyeball through a path shared by the image laser light as further taught by Lychagov for the purpose of having all of the electronics in the temple.
Regarding claim 6, insofar as it is understood, the combination of Jiang as modified by Bar-Zeev disclose the image display system according to claim 5, as set forth above. Jiang and Bar-Zeev do not disclose or teach wherein the light emitter is configured to adjust at least either the beam diameter or the beam divergence angle in such a manner that an object that is present in the three-dimensional space and that is positioned within a predetermined range from a position corresponding to the focal distance is visually recognized with a higher resolution than other objects in the three-dimensional space.
Lychagov further teaches the beam control section adjusts at least either the beam diameter or the beam divergence angle in such a manner that an object that is present in the three-dimensional space and that is positioned within a predetermined range from a position corresponding to the focal distance is visually recognized with higher resolution than other objects in the three-dimensional space (inter alia paragraph [0113] “the rendering system 21 may adjust the focal length so that virtual object displayed are always focused for the user's eye” e.g. see virtual object in figure 13) for the purpose of having a more accurate adjustment of the focal length of the head-mounted display based on the user's eye accommodation distance (paragraph [0113]). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the image display system as disclosed by the combination of Jiang as modified by Bar-Zeev to have the system is configured to adjust at least either the beam diameter or the beam divergence angle in such a manner that an object that is present in the three-dimensional space and that is positioned within a predetermined range from a position corresponding to the focal distance is visually recognized with a higher resolution than other objects in the three- dimensional space as taught by Lychagov for the purpose of having a more accurate adjustment of the focal length of the head-mounted display based on the user's eye accommodation distance.
Regarding claim 7, insofar as it is understood, the combination of Jiang as modified by Bar-Zeev disclose the image display system according to claim 5, as set forth above. Jiang further discloses wherein the light emitter comprises: a reference light source (e.g. 202) configured to emit reference laser light to the eye (e.g. 206) and one or more sensors configured to detect the reference laser light (e.g. 204) reflected from the eye (e.g. see figure 2) and further configured to acquire distances to reflective surfaces of the eye according to a result of the detection (inter alia paragraph [0039] discloses 108 is a time of flight sensor, which inherently measures distance), and wherein the light emitter is further configured to: acquire a data set regarding the distances to the plurality of reflective surfaces (axiomatic).
Jiang and Bar-Zeev do not disclose or teach data acquisition is at intervals shorter than intervals at which a frame of a video is displayed by the image laser light; and estimates a focal distance using the data set.
Lychagov further teaches the eyeball state acquisition section acquires a data set regarding the distances to the plurality of reflective surfaces (e.g. see signal detected at the 1st-4th surfaces in figure 11), at intervals shorter than intervals at which a frame of a video is displayed by the image laser light, and estimates the focal distance (implicit given statement “the rendering system 21 may adjust the focal length so that virtual object displayed are always focused for the user's eye” particularly “always focused”) for the purpose of having the virtual object always focused for the user's eye (paragraph [0113]). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the image display system as disclosed by the combination of Bar-Zeev as modified by Lychagov to have the eyeball state acquisition section acquires a data set regarding the distances to the plurality of reflective surfaces, at intervals shorter than intervals at which a frame of a video is displayed by the image laser light, and estimates the focal distance as further taught by Lychagov for the purpose of having the virtual object always focused for the user's eye.
Regarding claim 11, insofar as it is understood, the combination of Jiang as modified by Bar-Zeev disclose the image display system according to claim 1, as set forth above. Jiang and Bar-Zeev do not disclose or teach wherein the light emitter is configured to: acquire a gaze point by acquiring two-dimensional distribution of crystalline lens thicknesses, and change at least either the beam diameter or the beam divergence angle of the image laser light on an image plane according to the gaze point.
Lychagov further teaches the eyeball state acquisition section acquires a gaze point of the user (inter alia paragraph [0022] “reconstructor may be further configured to determine a direction of an eye optical axis”) by acquiring two-dimensional distribution of crystalline lens thicknesses (inter alia paragraph [0021] “reconstructor may be further configured to calculate a cornea curvature radius, a lens front surface curvature radius, a lens rear surface curvature radius, a lens thickness, and a distance between lens and retina”), and the beam control section changes at least either a beam diameter or a beam divergence angle of the image laser light in an image plane according to the gaze point for the purpose of having a more accurate adjustment of the focal length of the head-mounted display based on the user's eye accommodation distance (paragraph [0113]). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the image display system as disclosed by the combination of Jiang as modified by Bar-Zeev to have the eyeball state acquisition section acquires a gaze point of the user by acquiring two-dimensional distribution of crystalline lens thicknesses, and the beam control section changes at least either a beam diameter or a beam divergence angle of the image laser light in an image plane according to the gaze point as taught by Lychagov for the purpose of having a more accurate adjustment of the focal length of the head-mounted display based on the user's eye accommodation distance.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. foreign patent document CN217787507, using US Patent Application Publication 2023/0034562 as an English translation, in view of Bar-Zeev US Patent Application Publication 2012/0113092, of record, and in further view of Fix et al. US Patent 11,112,865, of record.
Regarding claim 10, insofar as it is understood, the combination of Jiang as modified by Bar-Zeev disclose the image display system according to claim 9, as set forth above. Jiang and Bar-Zeev do not disclose or teach wherein the light emitter is configured to detect the reference laser light reflected from the eye, at a position circumscribing an outlet port that is configured to allow the image laser light and the reference laser light reflected from the scanning mirror emitted.
Fix teaches a similar HMD (e.g. see figure 2) including an eyeball state acquisition section that acquires information regarding a state of an eye of a user (e.g. abstract “eye-tracking systems”) including an IR laser source (inter alia column 1 lines 59-61 “at least one infrared pixel may emit infrared light from at least one of: a vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser”) and uses the state of the eye information to improve the focus of the displayed image (inter alia column 1 lines 13-17). Fix further teaches light reflected from the eyeball, at a position circumscribing a port through which the image laser light and the reference laser light reflected from the scanning mirror are emitted (e.g. figure 4 shows IR source 408 emitting light and the IR sensors 410 in frame 404 surrounding 408) for the purpose of detecting glints at different positions to determine an orientation of the eye (inter alia column 10 line 53- column 11 line 7). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the image display system as disclosed by the combination of Jiang as modified by Bar-Zeev to have the distance acquisition section detects the reference laser light reflected from the eyeball, at a position circumscribing a port through which the image laser light and the reference laser light reflected from the scanning mirror are emitted as taught by Fix for the purpose of detecting glints at different positions to determine an orientation of the eye.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 25, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument that the amended claims no longer invoke 112(f) interpretations, the examiner is unpersuaded. Insofar as the examiner understands applicant is relying on “one or more processors” to accomplish various functions. In cases involving a special purpose computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation, the Federal Circuit has consistently required that the structure be more than simply a general purpose computer or microprocessor and that the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed function. See, e.g., Noah Systems Inc. v. Intuit Inc., 675 F.3d 1302, 1312, 102 USPQ2d 1410, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239. See MPEP 2181. In this case said “one or more processors” is interpreted to be general purpose processors.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
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 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 George G King whose telephone number is (303)297-4273. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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.
/George G. King/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 February 11, 2026
1 In cases involving a special purpose computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation, the Federal Circuit has consistently required that the structure be more than simply a general purpose computer or microprocessor and that the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed function. See, e.g., Noah Systems Inc. v. Intuit Inc., 675 F.3d 1302, 1312, 102 USPQ2d 1410, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239. See MPEP 2181.