DETAILED ACTION
1. This Office Action is responsive to claims filed for No. 18/328,736 on February 9, 2026. Please note Claims 1-20 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Priority
3. The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 17/003,606, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. The parent application does not reasonably provide possession of aspects of the clip-on corrective lens and in general, additional/supplemental (in addition to the primary lens) optics which can be compensated for. This child application is the first disclosure in this family to detail the corrective lens which can be clipped on to the primary lens and specific compensation parameters for the clip-on corrective lens themselves. Furthermore, aspects of offsets, etc, while directed to subpixel aspects, are not detailed to enough extent with regards to the corrective lenses. [0294] of the disclosure beings many of the new details and even so, this level of detail is not sufficient, let alone applicable to the parent application. This level of detail was not found in the parent application (or the provisional applications) and as such, Claims 1-20 are not accorded the priority date. The effective filed date for this application is June 3, 2023.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
5. Claims 1, 2, 5-10 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kurz et al. ( US 2022/0391608 A1 ).
Kurz teaches in Claim 1:
An electronic device ( Figure 1, [0021]-[0022] disclose an HMD 100 housing various components ) comprising:
an electronic display comprising a display panel and a corrective lens ( Figure 1, [0023] discloses the HMD having a housing for a display 110. [0026] discloses a corrective lens 200 which can be attached to the HMD housing as well ); and
image processing circuitry configured to process image data to correct for optical crosstalk of the electronic display when the display panel is viewed through the corrective lens. ( [0005] discloses corrective processing by the HMD based on the specifics of the corrective lenses, such as prescription, colorblindness, etc, which are part of an identified code. Figure 7, [0055] details that based on the identified code, content can be adapted in the way it is rendered, i.e modifying a displayed image to compensate for lens distortion (based on the prescription in the identified code found on the transparent surface; please read this as crosstalk correction) )
Kurz teaches in Claim 2:
The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the electronic display comprises a primary lens and the corrective lens comprises a clip-on corrective lens in addition to the primary lens. ( Figure 1, [0023] discloses one or more lenses 112 (read as a primary lens) and a corrective lens 200 in addition. [0026] discloses details on the clip-on nature of these corrective lens )
Kurz teaches in Claim 5:
The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the image processing circuitry is configured to process the image data to correct for the optical crosstalk of the electronic display when viewed through the corrective lens based on viewing characteristics. ( [0028] discloses details on the markings which can encode prescription parameters, e.g. nearsighted, farsighted, etc (read as viewing characteristics). These parameters are then processed and the image content is adapted. [0044] further discloses minor displacements of the spatial positioning of the corrective lenses themselves, which can be corrected for, i.e. another example of viewing characteristics which are corrected for )
Kurz teaches in Claim 6:
The electronic device of claim 5, wherein the viewing characteristics comprise adjusted viewing characteristics comprising measured viewing characteristics with one or more offsets based on one or more parameters of the corrective lens. ( [0044] discloses minor displacements, such as to the right, left, up or down (read as offsets) which impact the viewing characteristics. Another example includes the far and near sightedness of the corrective lenses, as detailed in [0028]. These are corrected for using rendering processes (read as adjusted viewing characteristics) )
Kurz teaches in Claim 7:
The electronic device of claim 6, wherein the one or more offsets comprise an eye relief offset, an x-offset, or a y-offset of a pupil measured by an eye tracker. ( [0044] discloses minor displacements which can be determined from an image sensor. Furthermore, the identified code can allow for proper rendering which can reduce or avoid pupil swim, which occurs when a user turns their head, resulting in a displacement/offset, as detailed in [0055]. [0002] discloses eye tracking image sensors which can detect position and movement of the user’s eyes and [0024] discloses the eye tracking characteristics determine the pupil center, which then allows for offsets to be determined, i.e. gaze information. Furthermore, pupil swim in which images appear wobbly, as detailed in [0044], is also corrected for, providing eye relief/offset correction )
Kurz teaches in Claim 8: The electronic device of claim 6, wherein the one or more parameters of the corrective lens comprises a power of the corrective lens. ( [0043] discloses power aspects of the prescription as part of the markings in the corrective lenses )
Kurz teaches in Claim 9:
The electronic device of claim 6, wherein the image processing circuitry or other data processing circuitry of the electronic device is configured to determine the one or more offsets based on a relationship between a baseline eye relief and a corrective lens eye relief. ( [0044] discloses minor displacements which can be determined from an image sensor (read displacements as offset from a baseline). Furthermore, the identified code can allow for proper rendering which can reduce or avoid pupil swim, which occurs when a user turns their head, resulting in a displacement/offset, as detailed in [0055] (another example of from a baseline). [0002] discloses eye tracking image sensors which can detect position and movement of the user’s eyes and [0024] discloses the eye tracking characteristics determine the pupil center, which then allows for offsets to be determined, i.e. gaze information. Furthermore, pupil swim in which images appear wobbly, as detailed in [0044], is also corrected for, providing eye relief/offset correction )
Kurz teaches in Claim 10:
The electronic device of claim 6, wherein the image processing circuitry or other data processing circuitry of the electronic device is configured to determine the one or more offsets based on a relationship between a baseline x- or y-offset and a corrective lens x- or y-offset. ( The same reasoning in Claim 9 is also applicable here as well: [0044] discloses minor displacements which can be determined from an image sensor (read displacements as offset from a baseline). Furthermore, the identified code can allow for proper rendering which can reduce or avoid pupil swim, which occurs when a user turns their head, resulting in a displacement/offset, as detailed in [0055] (another example of from a baseline). [0002] discloses eye tracking image sensors which can detect position and movement of the user’s eyes and [0024] discloses the eye tracking characteristics determine the pupil center, which then allows for offsets to be determined, i.e. gaze information. Furthermore, pupil swim in which images appear wobbly, as detailed in [0044], is also corrected for, providing eye relief/offset correction )
Kurz teaches in Claim 16:
One or more tangible, non-transitory, machine-readable media comprising instructions that, when executed ( [0052] discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium using a processor to execute a method ), cause at least the following operations to be performed:
obtaining viewing characteristics of an eye viewing an electronic display through a corrective lens ( Figure 1, [0023] discloses the HMD having a housing for a display 110. [0026] discloses a corrective lens 200 which can be attached to the HMD housing as well. [0028] discloses details on markings on the corrective lens which can encode prescription parameters, e.g. nearsighted, farsighted, etc (read as viewing characteristics). These parameters are then processed and the image content is adapted. [0044] further discloses minor displacements of the spatial positioning of the corrective lenses themselves, which can be corrected for, i.e. another example of viewing characteristics which are corrected for );
adjusting the viewing characteristics based on a parameter of the corrective lens ( Please note the above with regards to correction (read as adjusting) ); and
performing a color shift compensation based on the adjusted viewing characteristics. ( [0005] discloses an issue of colorblindness and the corrective processing here includes increasing contrast or modify selective colors (read as a color shift compensation) )
Kurz teaches in Claim 17:
The tangible, non-transitory, machine-readable media of claim 16, wherein the viewing characteristics comprise viewing angle, viewing location, or viewing aperture size, or any combination thereof. ( [0044] discloses minor displacements, such as to the right, left, up or down (read as offsets) which impact the viewing characteristics. Another example includes the far and near sightedness of the corrective lenses, as detailed in [0028]. These are corrected for using rendering processes and the issues represent a viewing location issue as well as viewing angle (considering the distortion between the two lenses impacts the viewing angles) )
Kurz teaches in Claim 18:
The tangible, non-transitory, machine-readable media of claim 17, wherein adjusting the viewing characteristics comprise adjusting the viewing location based at least in part on a power of the corrective lens. ( [0043] discloses power aspects of the prescription as part of the markings in the corrective lenses. This is corrected for )
Kurz teaches in Claim 19:
The tangible, non-transitory, machine-readable media of claim 17, wherein the viewing location comprises an eye relief, an x-offset, or a y-offset of a pupil of the eye viewing the electronic display. ( [0044] discloses minor displacements which can be determined from an image sensor. Furthermore, the identified code can allow for proper rendering which can reduce or avoid pupil swim, which occurs when a user turns their head, resulting in a displacement/offset, as detailed in [0055]. [0002] discloses eye tracking image sensors which can detect position and movement of the user’s eyes and [0024] discloses the eye tracking characteristics determine the pupil center, which then allows for offsets to be determined, i.e. gaze information. Furthermore, pupil swim in which images appear wobbly, as detailed in [0044], is also corrected for, providing eye relief/offset correction )
Kurz teaches in Claim 20:
The tangible, non-transitory, machine-readable media of claim 19, wherein adjusting the viewing characteristics comprise applying a correction offset to the eye relief, the x-offset, or the y-offset, wherein the correction offset is based at least in part on a power of the corrective lens. ( [0043] discloses power aspects of the prescription as part of the markings in the corrective lenses. This is corrected for and [0044] discloses the minor displacements )
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
8. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurz et al.
( US 2022/0391608 A1 ), as applied to Claim 1, further in view of Blanche et al.
( US 12,345,885 B1 ).
As per Claim 4:
Kurz does not explicitly teach “wherein the electronic display comprises a primary lens that is the corrective lens.”
However, in the same field of endeavor, HMD with corrective lenses, Blanche teaches of an optical lens set, ( Blanche, Figure 5, Columns 8-9, Lines 61-10 ). Notably, Blanche teaches of two optical lens, an inner and outer optical lens which can allow a viewer with a prescription to see a corrected virtual image. However, Blanche teaches to the inner optical lens is optional and the outer optical can be used independently and be placed in front of an optical combiner to correct the real-world imagery. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would realize prescription lenses can be designed and used as the primary lens on an HMD, forgoing the need for additional lens(es) and still be able to correct images. To be able to combine functionality is also within ordinary skill in the art with regards to integrated design, etc.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filed date of the invention, to implement the concept of only one/primary lens and still be able to correct for prescription issues, with the motivation that Blanche teaches additional lens can be optional and one of ordinary skill in the art could design a more simplistic approach, minimizing the number of components in an HDM, ( Blanche, Column 9, Lines 61-5 ).
9. Claim 3 and 11-15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurz et al.
( US 2022/0391608 A1 ), as applied to Claim 1, further in view of Medeiros
( US 2023/0258961 A1 ).
As per Claim 3:
Kurz does not explicitly teach “wherein the clip-on corrective lens comprises a convex-concave lens, a biconvex lens, a biconcave lens, a plano- convex lens, a plano-concave lens, or any combination thereof.”
However, in the same field of endeavor, eyewear, Medeiros teaches of an eyeglass lens which can utilize a sticker/label 100, ( Medeiros, Figure 2A, [0040] ). Notably, the sticker can enable any eyeglass into a pair of prescription eyeglass. Medeiros teaches in [0036] that the sticker can function as a corrective lens given its optical film to provide optical corrective power. As Figure 2A shows, the corrective lens attaches to the lens 200 and takes on the concave surface of the lens 200. As shown, the shape of the corrective lens is naturally also concave as well. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would realize to design lens in a plurality of ways and concave and convex are two of the most popular such designs.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filed date of the invention, to implement the corrective lens in a concave shape, as taught by Medeiros, with the motivation that it can easily adhere to the already concave shape of the lens 200. Furthermore, a design is well known in the art as well.
Kurz teaches in Claim 11:
A system ( Figure 1, [0021]-[0022] disclose an HMD 100 housing various components ) comprising:
an electronic display panel; a primary lens coupled to the electronic display panel ( Figure 1, [0023] discloses the HMD having a housing for a display 110. Figure 1, [0023] discloses one or more lenses 112 (read as a primary lens) );
a first clip-on corrective lens configured to apply a first correction [when attached to the primary lens] ( [0026] discloses a corrective lens 200 which can be attached to the HMD housing as well. [0026] discloses details on the clip-on nature of these corrective lens );
a second clip-on corrective lens configured to apply a second correction different from the first correction [when attached to the primary lens] ( [0005] discloses right and left corrective lenses (read as two clip-on corrective lenses). Each lens mimics the functionality described in [0026] and naturally has its own corrective aspects ); and
image processing circuitry configured to apply an optical crosstalk compensation to image data for display on the electronic display panel based on the first correction when the first clip-on corrective lens is attached to the primary lens and based on the second correction when the second clip-on corrective lens is attached to the primary lens ( [0005] discloses corrective processing by the HMD based on the specifics of the corrective lenses, such as prescription, colorblindness, etc, which are part of an identified code. Figure 7, [0055] details that based on the identified code, content can be adapted in the way it is rendered, i.e modifying a displayed image to compensate for lens distortion (based on the prescription in the identified code found on the transparent surface; please read this as crosstalk correction). In light of [0005], the functionality is applied to both corrective lenses ); but
Kurz does not explicitly teach the first and second clip-on corrective lenses are “attached to the primary lens”.
As shown, it is arranged at a distance. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to design a corrective lens to be attached to the primary lens if need be.
To emphasize, in the same field of endeavor, eyewear, Medeiros teaches of an eyeglass lens which can utilize a sticker/label 100, ( Medeiros, Figure 2A, [0040] ). Notably, the sticker can enable any eyeglass into a pair of prescription eyeglass. Medeiros teaches in [0036] that the sticker can function as a corrective lens given its optical film to provide optical corrective power. As Figure 2A shows, the corrective lens attaches to the lens 200 and takes on the concave surface of the lens 200. As shown, the shape of the corrective lens is naturally also concave as well. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would realize to design lens in a plurality of ways and concave and convex are two of the most popular such designs.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filed date of the invention, to implement the corrective lens as an attachment to the primary lens, as taught by Medeiros, with the motivation that it can easily adhere to the already concave shape of the lens 200. Furthermore, a design is well known in the art as well and can minimize the design of the eyewear.
Kurz teaches in Claim 12:
The system of claim 11, comprising an eye tracker configured to obtain viewing characteristics of a pupil viewing the electronic display panel, wherein the image processing circuitry is configured to apply the optical crosstalk compensation to the image data based on an adjusted form of the viewing characteristics ( [0044] discloses minor displacements which can be determined from an image sensor. Furthermore, the identified code can allow for proper rendering which can reduce or avoid pupil swim, which occurs when a user turns their head, resulting in a displacement/offset, as detailed in [0055]. [0002] discloses eye tracking image sensors which can detect position and movement of the user’s eyes and [0024] discloses the eye tracking characteristics determine the pupil center, which then allows for offsets to be determined, i.e. gaze information. Furthermore, pupil swim in which images appear wobbly, as detailed in [0044], is also corrected for, providing eye relief/offset correction ) that differ when the first clip-on corrective lens is attached to the primary lens compared to when the second clip-on corrective lens is attached to the primary lens. ( [0005] discloses each corrective lens can be corrected for using the above rendering details )
Kurz teaches in Claim 13:
The system of claim 12, wherein the adjusted form of the viewing characteristics comprises an offset that differs based on the first correction or the second correction. ( [0005] discloses each corrective lens has its own correction, i.e. the first and second corrections differ )
Kurz teaches in Claim 14:
The system of claim 13, wherein the offset is based on a relationship between a baseline eye relief without the first correction or the second correction and a clip-on eye relief with the first correction or the second correction. ( [0044] discloses minor displacements which can be determined from an image sensor (read displacements as offset from a baseline). Furthermore, the identified code can allow for proper rendering which can reduce or avoid pupil swim, which occurs when a user turns their head, resulting in a displacement/offset, as detailed in [0055] (another example of from a baseline). [0002] discloses eye tracking image sensors which can detect position and movement of the user’s eyes and [0024] discloses the eye tracking characteristics determine the pupil center, which then allows for offsets to be determined, i.e. gaze information. Furthermore, pupil swim in which images appear wobbly, as detailed in [0044], is also corrected for, providing eye relief/offset correction )
Kurz teaches in Claim 15:
The system of claim 13, wherein the offset is based on a relationship between a baseline x- or y-offset without the first correction or the second correction and a clip- on x- or y-offset with the first correction or the second correction. ( The same reasoning in Claim 9 is also applicable here as well: [0044] discloses minor displacements which can be determined from an image sensor (read displacements as offset from a baseline). Furthermore, the identified code can allow for proper rendering which can reduce or avoid pupil swim, which occurs when a user turns their head, resulting in a displacement/offset, as detailed in [0055] (another example of from a baseline). [0002] discloses eye tracking image sensors which can detect position and movement of the user’s eyes and [0024] discloses the eye tracking characteristics determine the pupil center, which then allows for offsets to be determined, i.e. gaze information. Furthermore, pupil swim in which images appear wobbly, as detailed in [0044], is also corrected for, providing eye relief/offset correction )
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant’s arguments considered, but are respectfully not persuasive.
Applicant argues Kurz does not qualify as prior art. To re-iterate, Applicant’s earliest priority date is June 3, 2023 and this is because the priority date, i.e. the parent application ‘606, does not contain the claimed subject matter of this child application. Please see the priority section for more details and as far as Examiner can discern from these Remarks, Applicant does not seemingly argue this position.
With the date of June 3, 2023 in mind, the Kurz prior art ‘608, has a date of May 25, 2022, qualifying as 102(a)(1), given the earlier publication date versus the June 3, 2023 of this current application. As such, Examiner applies Kurz under 102(a)(1). When looking at the exceptions for 102(a)(1), namely 102(b)(1), Examiner cites MPEP:
2153 ( Prior Art Exceptions Under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1) to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) )
2153.01 ( Prior Art Exception Under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A) To AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) )
2153.01(a) ( Grace Period Inventor-Originated Disclosure Exception )
The exceptions here deal with grace periods with regards to inventor or third party. However, there is seemingly no common inventor between Kurz and the current application, so it is unclear how this exception would be applied.
Applicant argues about common assignee and noted the recordation stamps for Apple. However, assignee exceptions apply as part of 102(b)(2), which is relevant if the prior art qualifies only as 102(a)(2). However, as noted above, Kurz is applied under 102(a)(1) and while Applicant mentions details of grace period, within one year, this is relevant to inventorship, not assignee.
As such, Examiner does not see an error(s) in the application of the Kurz reference and maintains the rejection.
Conclusion
11. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DENNIS P JOSEPH whose telephone number is (571)270-1459. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 5:30 - 3:30 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, Amr Awad can be reached at 571-272-7764. 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.
/DENNIS P JOSEPH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621