DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statement dated 12/26/2023 is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it uses legalese - i.e. it is an almost verbatim copy of claim 1. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No.12,253,677. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claim sets include the same or similar limitations such that an anticipatory or obviousness relationship exists between the limitations. In this case all of the limitations of both document's claims are present in both claim sets and although the language is not identical the limitations are substantially similar within the broadest reasonable interpretation standard.
It is noted that the claim language of the instant application 18/395890 within claims 2, 3, and 10 repeats the same claim language of U.S. Patent No. 12,253,677.
The following table illustrates which claims teach the limitations of the instant application 18/395890 in view of the teachings of U.S. Patent No. 12,253,677.
Instant application 18/395890
U.S. Patent No. 12,253,677
Explanation as needed
Claim 1: A retinal projection device to be mounted on a near eye wearable device, the retinal projection device comprising: a light source configured to emit laser light; a movable mirror configured to perform scanning with the laser light; and a reflector configured to project an image onto a retina of a user wearing the near eye wearable device by reflecting the laser light having passed through the movable mirror and irradiating the retina with reflected light, wherein the reflector includes a plurality of unit regions provided along a surface of a lens of the near eye wearable device, and the surface faces an eyeball of the user, and wherein each of the plurality of unit regions is a nanostructure configured to reflect the laser light at a reflection angle corresponding to a position where the unit region is provided when the laser light having passed through the movable mirror is incident on the unit region
Claim 1: A retinal projection device to be mounted on a near eye wearable device, the retinal projection device comprising: a projector module including a light source configured to emit laser light and a movable mirror configured to perform scanning with the laser light; a reflector configured to project an image onto a retina of a user wearing the near eye wearable device by reflecting the laser light having passed through the movable mirror and irradiating the retina with reflected light; and a controller configured to determine an irradiation range of the reflector to be irradiated with the laser light in accordance with a position of a pupil of the user and to control the projector module to irradiate the irradiation range with the laser light, wherein the reflector includes a plurality of unit regions provided along a surface of a lens of the near eye wearable device, and the surface faces an eyeball of the user, each of the plurality of unit regions is a nanostructure configured to reflect the laser light at a reflection angle corresponding to a position where the unit region is provided when the laser light having passed through the movable mirror is incident on the unit region, the irradiation range is a part of the plurality of unit regions the controller determines a first irradiation range as the irradiation range when the pupil is located at a first position, and determines a second irradiation range as the irradiation range when the pupil is located at a second position different from the first position, and the first irradiation range partially overlaps the second irradiation range.
One ordinarily skilled in the art would recognize the similarities of both inventions disclosing the system of a retinal projection device used to project a source towards the eye of a user.
Claims 1-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of copending Application No. 19/047783. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
It is noted that the claim language of the instant application 18/395890 within claims 2, 3, and 10 repeats the same claim language of copending Application No. 19/047783.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
The following table illustrates which claims teach the limitations of the instant application 18/395890 in view of the teachings of the copending application 19/047783.
Instant application 18/395890
Instant application 19/047783
Explanation as needed
Claim 1: A retinal projection device to be mounted on a near eye wearable device, the retinal projection device comprising: a light source configured to emit laser light; a movable mirror configured to perform scanning with the laser light; and a reflector configured to project an image onto a retina of a user wearing the near eye wearable device by reflecting the laser light having passed through the movable mirror and irradiating the retina with reflected light, wherein the reflector includes a plurality of unit regions provided along a surface of a lens of the near eye wearable device, and the surface faces an eyeball of the user, and wherein each of the plurality of unit regions is a nanostructure configured to reflect the laser light at a reflection angle corresponding to a position where the unit region is provided when the laser light having passed through the movable mirror is incident on the unit region
Claim 1: A retinal projection device to be mounted on a near eye wearable device, the retinal projection device comprising: a projector module including a light source configured to emit laser light and a movable mirror configured to perform scanning with the laser light; a reflector configured to project an image onto a retina of a user wearing the near eye wearable device by reflecting the laser light having passed through the movable mirror and irradiating the retina with reflected light; and a controller configured to determine an irradiation range of the reflector to be irradiated with the laser light in accordance with a position of a pupil of the user and to control the projector module to irradiate the irradiation range with the laser light, wherein the reflector includes a plurality of unit regions provided along a surface of a lens of the near eye wearable device, and the surface faces an eyeball of the user, each of the plurality of unit regions is a nanostructure configured to reflect the laser light at a reflection angle corresponding to a position where the unit region is provided when the laser light having passed through the movable mirror is incident on the unit region, and the irradiation range is a part of the plurality of unit regions.
One ordinarily skilled in the art would recognize the similarities of both inventions disclosing the system of a retinal projection device used to project a source towards the eye of a user.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 are allowed, pending applicant’s overcoming of the obvious double patenting rejections above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with respect to the allowable subject matter, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach of the claimed combination of limitations to warrant a rejection under 35 USC 102 or 103.
Specifically regarding the allowability of independent claim 1: The prior art of record does not disclose or suggest a retinal projection device comprising: “a light source configured to emit laser light; a movable mirror configured to perform scanning with the laser light; and a reflector configured to project an image onto a retina of a user wearing the near eye wearable device by reflecting the laser light having passed through the movable mirror and irradiating the retina with reflected light, wherein the reflector includes a plurality of unit regions provided along a surface of a lens of the near eye wearable device, and the surface faces an eyeball of the user, and wherein each of the plurality of unit regions is a nanostructure configured to reflect the laser light at a reflection angle corresponding to a position where the unit region is provided when the laser light having passed through the movable mirror is incident on the unit region”, along with other claim limitations, is not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record. Claims 2-10 are allowable due to pendency on independent claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Georgiou (20210239979), Rolland (20190369401), Rolland (20180113310), and Tosaya (20140043320) are cited to show examples of a display device employing two optical sub-assemblies that function in tandem.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sharrief I Broome whose telephone number is (571)272-3454. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm, 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, 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.
Sharrief I. Broome
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/SHARRIEF I BROOME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872