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 .
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-24 and 31-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11614638 B1 (Sharma; Robin et al.) in view of WO 2020045415 A1 (SHINOKI,Keiichiro).
PNG
media_image1.png
766
542
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
250
458
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
710
550
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Per claims 1-2 and 31, Sharma teaches a head-mounted device left and right optical modules module [see figures 1-2:200], comprising: a support structure [100]; a display coupled to the support structure [130]; left and right removable vision correction lenses [270] that are removably coupled to the fixed lenses [245 and 247] of the left and right optical modules, left and right optical lenses through which the display is visible from an eye box [270]; an infrared light source configured to emit infrared light through the lens towards the eye box [210: “Light source 210 may include a non-visible light source that illuminates optical fiber 223 with illumination light that encounters fiber coupler 220. Non-visible light may be defined as light having wavelengths that are outside the visible light range, such as ultraviolet light and infrared light. In aspects of this disclosure, visible light may be defined as having a wavelength range of approximately 380 nm-700 nm. Infrared light having a wavelength range of approximately 700 nm-1 mm includes near-infrared light”]; and an infrared camera configured to capture an image from the eye box through the lens [290: “Backscattered light from the prescription lens 270 and eye 250 or face (not illustrated) interfere at fiber coupler 220 to generate optical interference signal 211 that is received by detector 290. Detector 290 generates an optical spectrum signal 213 from the optical interference signal 211. Surfaces of the sample that backscatter a significant amount of light will cause interferences of greater intensity. In an example spectral-domain OCT embodiment, detector 290 is a 250 kHz spectrometer. In an example swept-source OCT embodiment, detector 290 is a photodiode”], wherein the lens comprises opposing first and second optical surfaces and an edge surface that extends between the first and second optical surfaces [inherent as a lens requires an incident surface and a transmission surface that are connect at the edges].
Sharma lacks left and right removable vision correction lenses that are removably coupled to the fixed lenses of the left and right optical modules and the left and right removable lens comprises a light-absorbing coating (or the reflection reduction coating as recited in claim 31) on the edge surface, an antireflection coating on the first and second optical surfaces; and a fluoropolymer layer on the antireflection coating. Sharma further lacks the antireflection coating that exhibits less than 2.5% reflectivity from 380 nm to 1000 nm and a hard coat between the antireflection coating and the lens substrate.
However, Shinoki a lens substrate 10 comprising “a dielectric film 20, a dielectric film 30, a light absorbing layer 35, and an antifouling film 40.” Shinoki teaches that “A ‘lens surface’ is a surface that has been polished transparently to produce the designed optical effect on the lens. At the lens surface, light incident on the lens is refracted and focused or diverged. The "edge surface" is a surface of the lens other than the lens surface. Usually, the edge surface is not polished similarly to the lens surface, and the transparency is often lowered like a ground glass.
When the light incident on the lens is irradiated on the edge surface, the light reflected on the edge surface becomes stray light, which may disturb the image formed by the lens. In order to solve such a problem, a lens in which a light-absorbing process is performed on an edge surface is conventionally known (for example, see Patent Document 1). The light absorption process is called ‘inking’, and a process of forming a black light absorption layer on the edge surface is known. The light absorbing layer absorbs light applied to the edge surface. Therefore, a lens having a light absorbing layer is a high-quality lens in which stray light is suppressed.”
Shinoki’s lens also incorporates a fluoropolymer layer on the antireflection coating [40]. Sharma et al. lacks the antireflection coating that exhibits less than 2.5% reflectivity from 380 nm to 1000 nm and a hard coat between the antireflection coating and the lens substrate. However, official notice is hereby taken that it would have been a matter of routine skill in the art to use an antireflection coating that exhibits less than 2.5% reflectivity from 380 nm to 1000 nm in order to minimize optical noise of reflected infrared light transmitted to the detector 290. Furthermore, official notice is hereby taken that it was common knowledge to incorporate a hard coat layer between the antireflection coating and the lens substrate in order to reduce lens scratching. Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Shinoki with Sharma.
Regarding the Sharma’s lack of a removable vision correction lens [270] that is removably coupled to the fixed lens and wherein the first and second optical surfaces and the edge surface are on the removable vision correction lens, official notice is hereby taken that it was common knowledge to incorporate a removable vision correction lens that is removably coupled to the fixed lens and wherein the first and second optical surfaces and the edge surface are on the removable vision correction lens in order to change the vision correction characteristics of the lens. Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Per claim 3, Sharma et al. teach the head-mounted device lens module defined in claim 1 wherein the light-absorbing coating comprises polymer with a light-absorbing additive configured to absorb visible light and infrared light [inherent to the combination, see the machine translation: “(Light Absorbing Layer) The light absorbing layer 35 has a function of absorbing light targeted by the lens 1. For example, when the lens 1 is used for visible light and is designed to exert a desired refraction on visible light incident on the lens 1, the light absorbing layer 35 is designed to absorb visible light. You. When the lens 1 is used for infrared light, the light absorbing layer 35 is designed to absorb infrared light. The light absorption layer 35 of the present embodiment is provided over the side surface S3, which is the edge surface, and the back surface S4. The light absorbing layer 35 in the present invention is preferably provided at least on the side surface S3. The light absorbing layer 35 includes a light absorbing material that absorbs light and a polymer material that holds the light absorbing material. The polymer material functions as a binder for appropriately dispersing and holding the light absorbing material. When the lens 1 targets visible light, a black pigment and a black dye can be used as the light absorbing material.”]
Per claim 4, Sharma et al. teach the head-mounted device lens module defined in claim 3, but lacks the light-absorbing coating has a first refractive index, wherein the lens has a substrate with a second refractive index, and wherein the first and second refractive indices differ by less than 0.1. However, official notice is hereby taken that it was common knowledge to match the light-absorbing polymer refractive index to the lens refractive index in order to reduce unwanted light reflections. Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Per claim 5, Sharma et al. teach the head-mounted device lens module defined in claim 4, wherein the light-absorbing additive comprises pigment [inherent to the combination, see the machine translation: “a black pigment and a black dye can be used as the light absorbing material”].
Per claim 6, Sharma et al. teach the head-mounted device lens module defined in claim 4 wherein the light-absorbing additive comprises dye [inherent to the combination, see the machine translation: “a black pigment and a black dye can be used as the light absorbing material”].
Per claim 7, Sharma et al. teach the head-mounted device lens module defined in claim 3 further comprising an antireflection coating on the edge surface that is overlapped by the light-absorbing coating [inherent to the combination, see Shinoki’s figure 1, dielectric layer 20].
Per claim 8, Sharma et al. teach the head-mounted device lens module defined in claim 7 but lacks the antireflection coating comprises a stack of thin-film dielectric layers. However, official notice is hereby taken that it was common knowledge to use stack of thin-film dielectric layers in order to simplify manufacturing and lens coating replacements. Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Per claim 9, Sharma et al. teach the head-mounted device lens module defined in claim 7 but lacks the antireflection coating comprises a moth-eye coating. However, official notice is hereby taken that it was common knowledge to incorporate a moth-eye pattern antireflection coating because a compound eye of a moth contains of an array of cuticular protuberances termed "corneal nipples." The corneal nipple array provides a significant reduction in the reflectance of the facet lens surface, and consequently, a high transmittance of light through the interface between the air and the compound eye. Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Per claim 10, Sharma et al. teach the head-mounted device lens module defined in claim 7 wherein the antireflection coating comprises a dielectric layer characterized by a graded refractive index [inherent to the combination, see Shinoki’s machine translation: “When the dielectric film is a multilayer film, the dielectric multilayer film is obtained by alternately depositing or sputtering two kinds of inorganic materials having different refractive indexes through a mask.”]
Per claims 11 and 13, Sharma et al. teach the head-mounted device lens module defined in claim 1 but lacks an anti-viral layer on the first and second optical surfaces and an anti-bacterial layer on the first and second optical surfaces. However, official notice is hereby taken that it was common knowledge to incorporate an anti-viral layer on the first and second optical surfaces and an anti-bacterial layer on the first and second optical surfaces in order to improve the lens hygiene. Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Per claim 12, Sharma et al. teach the head-mounted device lens module defined in claim 1 but lacks an anti-fog layer on the first and second optical surfaces. However, official notice is hereby taken that it was common knowledge to incorporate an anti-fog layer on the first and second optical surfaces in order to reduce environmental impact of lens transparency. Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Per claim 14, Sharma et al. teach the head-mounted device lens module defined in claim 1, but lacks a hard coat on the first and second optical surfaces; an antireflection layer on the hard coat; and an anti-smudge layer on the antireflection layer. However, official notice is hereby taken that it was common knowledge to incorporate a hard coat on the first and second optical surfaces; an antireflection layer on the hard coat; and an anti-smudge layer on the antireflection layer in order to reduce unwanted smudging. Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Per claim 15, Sharma et al. teach the head-mounted device lens module defined in claim 14 wherein the antireflection layer comprises a thin-film interference filter antireflection layer [inherent to the combination, see Shinoki’s dielectric layers 20 and 30].
Per claim 16, Sharma et al. teach the head-mounted device lens module defined in claim 14 wherein the antireflection layer comprises a graded index layer [inherent to the combination, see Shinoki’s machine translation: “When the dielectric film is a multilayer film, the dielectric multilayer film is obtained by alternately depositing or sputtering two kinds of inorganic materials having different refractive indexes through a mask.”]
Per claim 17, Sharma et al. teach the head-mounted device lens module defined in claim 14 but lacks the antireflection layer comprises a moth-eye coating. However, official notice is hereby taken that it was common knowledge to incorporate a moth-eye pattern antireflection coating because a compound eye of a moth contains of an array of cuticular protuberances termed "corneal nipples." The corneal nipple array provides a significant reduction in the reflectance of the facet lens surface, and consequently, a high transmittance of light through the interface between the air and the compound eye. Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Per claim 18, Sharma et al. teach the head-mounted device lens module defined in claim 14 but lacks an antistatic layer on the first and second optical surfaces. However, official notice is hereby taken that it was common knowledge to incorporate an antistatic layer on the first and second optical surfaces in order to reduce static buildup. Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Per claim 19, Sharma et al. teach the head-mounted device lens module defined in claim 1 but lacks first and second opaque masking rings respectively on the first and second optical surfaces. However, official notice is hereby taken that it was common knowledge to incorporate first and second opaque masking rings respectively on the first and second optical surfaces in order to reduce unwanted reflections. Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Per claim 20, Sharma et al. teach the head-mounted device lens module defined in claim 1 but lacks the edge surface has protrusions of different sizes that form a light-scattering texture on the edge surface. However, official notice is hereby taken that it was common knowledge to form at the edge surface protrusions of different sizes that form a light-scattering texture on the edge surface in order to reduce unwanted reflection. Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Per claim 21, Sharma et al. teach the head-mounted device lens module defined in claim 1 but lacks the lens comprises a lens substrate comprising a material selected from the group consisting of: sapphire and glass and wherein the lens comprises a sputtered hard coat on the first and second optical surfaces. However, official notice is hereby taken that it was common knowledge to form the lens from a material selected from the group consisting of: sapphire and glass and wherein the lens comprises a sputtered hard coat on the first and second optical surfaces in order to prevent the lens from scratching. Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Per claim 22, Sharma et al. teach the head-mounted device lens module defined in claim 1 but lacks a NaF catalyzed polymer anti-smudge coating on the first and second optical surfaces. However, official notice is hereby taken that it was common knowledge to form a NaF catalyzed polymer anti-smudge coating on the first and second optical surfaces in order to reduce noticeable smudges. Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Per claim 23, Sharma et al. teach the head-mounted device lens module defined in claim 1 further comprising a thin-film interference filter antireflection coating on the first and second optical surfaces that is configured to suppress reflections at visible and infrared wavelengths while imparting a non-neutral color to the lens [inherent to the combination, see Shinoki’s dielectric layers 20 and 30].
Per claim 24, Sharma et al. teach the head-mounted device lens module defined in claim 1 wherein the lens comprises a fixed lens [245,247] and a correction lens [270]. Sharma lacks a removable vision correction lens [270] that is removably coupled to the fixed lens and wherein the first and second optical surfaces and the edge surface are on the removable vision correction lens. However, official notice is hereby taken that it was common knowledge to incorporate a removable vision correction lens that is removably coupled to the fixed lens and wherein the first and second optical surfaces and the edge surface are on the removable vision correction lens in order to change the vision correction characteristics of the lens. Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Per claim 32, Sharma et al. teach the head-mounted device defined in claim 31 wherein the thin-film interference filter antireflection coating of each removable vision-correction lenses configured to pass visible light from the display and infrared light from the infrared light source and is configured to impart a non-neutral color to the vision correction lens [inherent to the combination].
Per claim 33, Sharma et al. teach the head-mounted device defined in claim 31, wherein the light-reflection-reduction coating comprises a coating configured to absorb the visible and infrared light [inherent to Shinoki’s 35].
Per claim 34, Sharma et al. teach the head-mounted device defined in claim 31, wherein the light-reflection-reduction coating comprises an additive in a polymer binder [inherent to the combination].
Per claim 35, Sharma et al. teach the head-mounted device defined in claim 34, but lacks the additive comprises particles having a refractive index higher than the polymer binder and configured to adjust a refractive index of the light-reflection-reduction coating to match a refractive index of the lens substrate. However, official notice is hereby taken that it was common knowledge to incorporate the additive comprises particles having a refractive index higher than the polymer binder and configured to adjust a refractive index of the light-reflection-reduction coating to match a refractive index of the lens substrate in order to match the refractive index of the binder to the lens and reduce unwanted reflections. Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Per claim 36, Sharma et al. teach the head-mounted device defined in claim 34, wherein the additive comprises particles configured to absorb visible and infrared light [inherent to the combination].
Per claim 37, Sharma et al. teach the head-mounted device defined in claim 31, but lacks the light-reflection-reduction coating comprises protrusions extending away from the edge surface. However, official notice is hereby taken that it was common knowledge to form a protrusion extending away from the edge surface in the light-reflection-reduction coating to reduce unwanted light reflections. Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Per claim 38, Sharma et al. teach the head-mounted device defined in claim 31, but lacks wherein the light-reflection-reduction coating has a graded refractive index. However, official notice is hereby taken that it was common knowledge to form the light-reflection-reduction coating with a graded refractive index in order to simplify manufacturing. Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES A DUDEK whose telephone number is (571)272-2290. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30-4:30 MT.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at 571-272-9791. 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.
/JAMES A DUDEK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871