DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Amendment
2. The amendment filed on 12/10/2025 has been entered into this application.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
3. 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.
4. Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
5. 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.
6. 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 limitations use 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 limitations are:
“a light measuring device (LMD) configured to” in claims 9 and 11-12.
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.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. Claims 1, 4-9, and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Pub. No. 2021/0092343 A1 by Ji et al. (hereinafter Ji) in view of US Patent Pub. No. 2018/0176535 A1 by Ninan et al. (hereinafter Ninan).
Regarding Claim 1, Ji teaches a method for image evaluation of a near-eye display (NED) (Abstract), comprising:
dividing a full view field of the NED into a plurality of sub-view-fields (Abstract) based on field of view (FOV), wherein the plurality of sub-view-fields are overlapping (Par. [0035-0036, 0069, 0127-0128]);
obtaining a plurality of sub-images corresponding to the plurality of sub-view-fields (Fig. 2-3, Abstract);
synthesizing the plurality of sub-images to obtain a full image (Abstract); but does not explicitly teach:
evaluating the full image to determine if it contains at least one visual artefact or nonuniformity distribution.
However, Ninan teaches evaluating the full image to determine if it contains at least one visual artefact or nonuniformity distribution (Par. [0115, 0158, 0167]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ji by Ninan as taught above such that evaluating the full image to determine if it contains at least one visual artefact or nonuniformity distribution is accomplished in order to remove visual artifacts that could otherwise be introduced in boundaries of the adjacent image layers (Ninan, Par. [0115]).
Regarding Claim 4, Ji teaches the sub-image (See Claim 1 rejection) is obtained by a light measuring device (LMD) (Abstract: discloses near-eye display method and apparatus based on human visual characteristics, spatial distribution characteristics of human eyes and meanwhile alleviate a dizzy phenomenon thus teaches obtained by a light measuring device) (Also see Par. [0009]: accord with a human gaze effect, Par. [0010]:a calculation unit).
Regarding Claim 5, Ji teaches evaluating the full image to determine if it contains at least one visual artefact (See Claim 1 rejection) further comprises:
obtaining an optical characteristic of the full image (Abstract: spatial frequencies); and
detecting the visual artefact based on the optical characteristics (See Claim 1 rejection).
Regarding Claim 6, Ji teaches the optical characteristic comprises luminance and/or chromaticity (Abstract: spatial frequencies thus teaches the limitation).
Regarding Claim 7, Ji teaches in the plurality of sub-images are partially overlapped (Par. [0035]).
Regarding Claim 8, Ji teaches a shape of the sub-view-field is a rectangle, a square, or a circle (Fig. 2-3).
Regarding Claim 9, Ji teaches a system for image evaluation of a near-eye display (NED) (See Claim 1 rejection. Note: a method claim can be used to implement an apparatus claim), comprising:
a light measuring device (LMD) (See Claim 4 rejection) configured to:
obtain a plurality of sub-images corresponding to a plurality of sub-view-fields displayed by the NED (See Claim 1 rejection); and
evaluate a full image to determine if it contains at least one visual artefact or nonuniformity distribution (See Claim 1 rejection); and
a processor (inherently teaches) configured to:
synthesize the plurality of sub-images to obtain the full image (See Claim 1 rejection);
wherein a full view field of the NED is divided into the plurality of sub-view-fields based on field of view (FOV), wherein the plurality of sub-view-fields are overlapping (See Claim 1 rejection).
Regarding Claim 12, Ji teaches the LMD (See Claim 9 rejection) is further configured to:
obtain an optical characteristic of the full image (See Claim 5 rejection); and
detect the visual artefact based on the optical characteristics (See Claim 5 rejection).
Regarding Claim 13, Ji teaches the optical characteristic comprises luminance (See Claim 6 rejection).
Regarding Claim 14, Ji teaches the optical characteristic comprises chromaticity (See Claim 6 rejection).
Regarding Claim 15, Ji teaches the plurality of sub-images are partially overlapped (See Claim 7 rejection).
Regarding Claim 16, Ji teaches a shape of the sub-view-field is a rectangle, a square, or a circle (See Claim 8 rejection).
9. Claims 2-3 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji in view Ninan as applied to Claims 1 and 9 above and further in view of CN110264408A by Guo. (hereinafter Guo).
Regarding Claim 2, Ji teaches dividing a full view field of the NED into a plurality of sub-view-fields (See Claim 1 rejection) but does not explicitly teach further comprises:
generating a plurality of sub-test patterns for a full test pattern; and
obtaining, by the NED, a plurality of sub-virtual images corresponding to the plurality of sub-test patterns, wherein the plurality of sub-virtual images correspond to the plurality of sub- view-fields.
However, Guo teaches generating a plurality of sub-test patterns for a full test pattern (Abstract); and
obtaining, by the NED, a plurality of sub-virtual images corresponding to the plurality of sub-test patterns wherein the plurality of sub-virtual images correspond to the plurality of sub- view-fields (Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ji as modified by Ninan by Guo as taught above such that generating a plurality of sub-test patterns for a full test pattern; and obtaining, by the NED, a plurality of sub-virtual images corresponding to the plurality of sub-test patterns, wherein the plurality of sub-virtual images correspond to the plurality of sub- view-fields is accomplished in order to measure quality of virtual image of the near-eye display, it is often necessary to one imaging device similar to a human eye to collect a the virtual image of the image (Guo, Background).
Regarding Claim 3, Ji teaches obtaining the plurality of sub-images corresponding to the plurality of sub-view-fields (See Claim 1 rejection) but does not explicitly teach further comprises:
performing one of the generated sub-test patterns;
rendering, by the NED, a sub-virtual image for the sub-test patterns and capturing the sub-virtual image; and
repeating the rendering and the capturing until all the plurality of sub-test patterns have been performed.
However, it is considered obvious to try all known solutions when there is a recognized need in the art (performing one of the generated sub-test patterns), there had been a finite number of identified, predictable solutions to the recognized need, and when one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143, E. Furthermore, such an arrangement would imply to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to perform one of the generated sub-test patterns; rendering, by the NED, a sub-virtual image for the sub-test patterns and capturing the sub-virtual image; and repeating the rendering and the capturing until all the plurality of sub-test patterns have been performed.
Regarding Claim 10, Ji as modified by Guo teaches the processor is further configured to generate a plurality of sub-test patterns for a full test pattern (See Claim 2 rejection); and
obtain a plurality of sub-virtual images corresponding to the plurality of sub-test patterns, wherein the plurality of sub-virtual images correspond to the plurality of sub-view-fields (See Claim 2 rejection).
Regarding Claim 11, Ji as modified by Guo teaches the NED is further configured to render a sub-virtual image for a sub-test pattern (See Claim 3 rejection); but does not explicitly teach:
the LMD is configured to capture the sub-virtual image to obtain the sub-image; and
the system further comprises a driver configured to control the NED and LMD to repeat the rendering and the capturing until all the plurality of sub-test patterns have been performed.
However, it is considered obvious to try all known solutions when there is a recognized need in the art (the LMD is configured to capture the sub-virtual image to obtain the sub-image; and the system further comprises a driver configured to control the NED and LMD to repeat the rendering and the capturing until all the plurality of sub-test patterns have been performed), there had been a finite number of identified, predictable solutions to the recognized need, and when one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143, E. Furthermore, such an arrangement would imply to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to configure the LMD to capture the sub-virtual image to obtain the sub-image; and configure a driver to control the NED and LMD to repeat the rendering and the capturing until all the plurality of sub-test patterns have been performed.
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant’s arguments filed on 12/10/20225 with respect to II. Claim Interpretation Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (Argument, Page 5-6) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant is advised to review M.P.E.P. § 2181(I): “If a claim limitation recites a term and associated functional language, the examiner should determine whether the claim limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is driven by the claim language, not by applicant’s intent or mere statements to the contrary included in the specification or made during prosecution.
“Instead of using "means" in such cases, a substitute term acts as a generic placeholder for the term "means" and would not be recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as being sufficiently definite structure for performing the claimed function. "The standard is whether the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure." Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1349, 115 USPQ2d at 1111; see also Greenberg v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 91 F.3d 1580, 1583, 39 USPQ2d 1783, 1786 (Fed. Cir. 1996)”.
Accordingly, examiners will apply 35 U.S.C. 112(f) to a claim limitation if it meets the following 3-prong analysis:
(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.
Therefore, it is evident from the above discussion that the claim language recited “a light measuring device (LMD) configured to” in claims 9 and 11-12 are not the definite structure. Definite structure would be a “detector, camera” for example.
11. Applicant’s arguments filed on 12/10/2025 with respect to claims 1-16 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
11.1 The Applicant argues that Ji, Ninan, and Guo, alone or in combination, do not teach or suggest at least the above elements of claim 1 (Argument, Page 6-8), specifically, Ji fails to disclose or suggest 1) "dividing a full view field of the NED into a plurality of sub-view-fields based on field of view (FOV), 2) wherein the plurality of sub-view-fields are overlapping" as recited in amended claim 1 (Argument, Page 7).
1) The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Ji clearly teaches dividing a near-eye display screen into n display subregions; acquiring critical spatial frequencies corresponding to the n display subregions respectively; creating and rendering corresponding video image data of n layers for the n display subregions from an input video image according to the critical spatial frequencies corresponding to the n display subregions respectively; transmitting the video image data of the n layers to the near-eye display; and finally, performing reconstruction on and stitching the video image data of the n layers to generate an image which accords with a human gaze effect, and displaying the image in the display screen. The control method of the near-eye display according to the present disclosure may greatly decrease an amount of data transmitted from an image generating source to the near-eye display, reduce a transmission bandwidth, support higher display resolution and refresh rate, reduce power consumption, accord with spatial distribution characteristics of human eyes and meanwhile alleviate a dizzy phenomenon (Abstract).
Therefore, it is evident from the above discussion that Ji dividing the full input image to subregions for the improvement of the transmission system where it reduces a transmission bandwidth, support higher display resolution and refresh rate, reduce power consumption as mentioned above.
2) Argument regarding “wherein the plurality of sub-view-fields are overlapping”, please see Claim 1 rejection (Final OA).
11.2 The Applicant argues that a prima facie case of obviousness for amended claim 1 has not been shown because all of the claim elements are not taught or suggested by the cited references. See MPEP § 2143.03 (citing In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981 (CCPA 1974)) (Argument, Page 8).
Since Office Action has shown that the combination of the cited references teaches or suggests each and every element of the amended claims, therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 JAMIL AHMED whose telephone number is (571) 272-1950. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Kara Geisel can be reached on 571-272-2416. 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.
/JAMIL AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877