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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-11, 23-33 are currently pending. In response to the Office Action mailed 12/03/2025 Applicant amended claims 1, 6-8, and 10-11, canceled claims 3, 12-15 and 17-22 and newly added claims 23-33
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-9 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20180239145 A1 to Lanman et al.
Regarding Claim 1. Lanman discloses a display comprising: a display assembly configured to display an image (Fig. 2 display system 200); an optical imaging assembly (Fig. 2 optics block 104) configured to form a virtual image based on the image; and a virtual image location adjustment assembly (Fig. 8 varifocal element 804 and track 806)configured to adjust the optical imaging assembly and/or the display assembly to adjust the virtual image to a target location (para 63 “virtual scene includes object 808 displayed on electronic display 802a at which the gaze of user 800”); and a control assembly configured to: obtain a vision parameter (para 57-58); obtain the target location of the virtual image (See para 63-64); and control the virtual image location adjustment assembly to adjust at least one of the optical imaging assembly or the display assembly to adjust the virtual image to the target location (Fig. 5 varifocal actuation block 506 and vergence processing module 512 see also para 65), wherein the target location of the virtual image is related to a preset scene type to which the image belongs, and wherein the preset scene type comprises any one of the following: a first preset scene type to which content of the image belongs; or a second preset scene type to which an object corresponding to the image belongs (para 63 “virtual scene includes object 808 ”).
Regarding Claim 2. Lanman further discloses when the image belongs to different preset scene types, the display is configured to present the virtual image at different target locations (para 63-64).
Regarding Claim 4. Lanman further discloses the preset scene type comprises at least one of the following: an office scene type, a reading scene type, a conference scene type, an interactive game scene type, or a video scene type (See para 36-37, it is understood that there are no known limitations preventing the display device of the prior art from displaying any virtual scene including the recited scenes. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (The absence of a disclosure in a prior art reference relating to function did not defeat the Board’s finding of anticipation of claimed apparatus because the limitations at issue were found to be inherent in the prior art reference); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971);In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). MPEP 2114).
Regarding Claim 6. Lanman further discloses the virtual image location adjustment assembly comprises a driving assembly configured to drive at least one of the optical imaging assembly or the display assembly to move to adjust the virtual image to the target location (Fig. 8 varifocal element 804).
Regarding Claim 7. Lanman further discloses the virtual image location adjustment assembly comprises: a location sensing assembly (Fig. 5 module 508) configured to: determine locations of at least one of the optical imaging assembly or the display assembly; determine a first distance between the display assembly and the optical imaging assembly based on the locations (para 36 “prediction module 508 is an encoder including logic that tracks the state of optics block 104 to predict to one or more future states or locations of optics block 104”); and determine to-move distances of at least one of the optical imaging assembly or the display assembly based on the first distance (para 34 “block 506 may include actuators or motors that move one or more of electronic display(s) 102 and/or optical block 104 on a track to change the distance between them or may include actuators and other components or mechanisms for changing the properties of one or more lenses included in optics block 104”); and a driving assembly configured to drive, based on the to-move distances, at least one of the optical imaging assembly or the display assembly to move to adjust the virtual image to the target location (Fig. 8 varifocal element 804).
Regarding Claim 8. Lanman further discloses the virtual image location adjustment assembly comprises a driving assembly (Fig. 8 varifocal element 804), wherein the optical imaging assembly comprises a zoom lens (See para 32 “ Optics block 104 … one or more optical elements, such as apertures, Fresnel lens, convex lenses, concave lenses, filters, and so forth, and may include combinations of different optical elements.” and “Magnification of the image light by optics block 104”), and wherein the driving assembly is configured to change a voltage signal or a current signal that is applied to the zoom lens to change a focal length of the zoom lens to adjust the virtual image to the target location (para 34 “vary the focal length” and “block 506 may include actuators or motors that move one or more of electronic display(s) 102 and/or optical block 104 on a track to change the distance between them”).
Regarding Claim 9. Lanman further discloses the virtual image location adjustment assembly comprises a driving assembly (Fig. 8 varifocal element 804) and a location sensing assembly (Fig. 5 module 508), wherein the optical imaging assembly comprises a zoom lens (See para 32 “Optics block 104 … one or more optical elements, such as apertures, Fresnel lenses, convex lenses, concave lenses, filters, and so forth, and may include combinations of different optical elements.” and “Magnification of the image light by optics block 104”), wherein the location sensing assembly is configured to: determine a first focal length of the zoom lens, and determine a focal length adjustment amount of the zoom lens based on the first focal length (para 36 “prediction module 508 is an encoder including logic that tracks the state of optics block 104 to predict to one or more future states or locations of optics block 104” ); and wherein the driving assembly is configured to change, based on the focal length adjustment amount (para 64 “varifocal element 804 moves optics block 104”), a voltage signal or a current signal that is applied to the zoom lens to adjust the virtual image to the target location (para 34 “Varifocal actuation block 506, thus, sets and changes the state of optics block 104 to achieve a desired focal length”).
Regarding Claim 24. Lanman further discloses the control assembly is further configured to receive the vision parameter from a user input interface (See para 49-51, “Content generated by an application may be in response to inputs received from the user via movement of HMD 501 or interface device 570”).
Regarding Claim 25. Lanman further discloses the control assembly is configured to obtain the preset scene type by at least one of receiving the preset scene type from a terminal device; or determining the preset scene type based on content of the image (para 54 “Based on the received information, engine 556 determines content to provide to HMD 501 for presentation to the user, such as a virtual scene”).
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.
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.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lanman as applied to claim 1 in view of US 20190331916 A1 to Yuan et al.
Regarding Claim 23. As stated above Lanman discloses all the limitations of base claim 1.
Lanman does not specifically disclose that the vision parameter in diopters comprise at least one of diopters of myopia, diopters of astigmatism, diopters of presbyopia, or diopters of hyperopia. Although, Lanman discloses aberrations of the user's eye could be measured by a wavefront aberrometer to account for properties of the user's eye when determining the depth of field to improve user comfort when viewing the scene (See para 69).
However, Yuan discloses that the vision parameter in diopters comprise at least one of diopters of myopia, diopters of astigmatism, diopters of presbyopia, or diopters of hyperopia (See para 84 “a process of using the HMD by the hyperopia/myopia group user, the wavefront map of the eyes of the user is acquired at first by virtue of the wavefront aberrometer…”) as applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP2143(I)(D), KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s effective filing date to include that the vision parameter in diopters comprise at least one of diopters of myopia, diopters of astigmatism, diopters of presbyopia, or diopters of hyperopia.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 26-33 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “a control assembly configured to obtain vision parameters in diopters”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Futher, it is noted that Lanman discloses “[a]ccounting for properties of the user's eye,” which would either anticipate or render obvious Applicant’s argued limitation.
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 EDMOND C LAU whose telephone number is (571)272-5859. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-6pm 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, 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.
/EDMOND C LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights