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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-9, in the reply filed on 5/11/2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statement dated 2/01/2024 is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claim 1 and 9, the claim recites “associated with” which is a subjective term (MPEP 2173.05(b). Specifically, what constitutes “associated” is entirely subjective to a practitioner of the invention and/or the subject themselves. Connected or linked to what? The metes and bounds are unclear since those of ordinary skill in the art would fail to understand what qualifies as an association or connection, and thus infringement becomes unclear (MPEP 2173.05; 2173).
Claims 2-9 inherit their indefiniteness from independent claim 1 respectively.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maruyama (20170315367).
Regarding claim 1, Maruyama discloses a head-mounted device (Fig 1, [0026], head-mounted display device 30) comprising: an eye-tracking system ([0072], head-mounted display device 30 can realize head tracking that detects the user's head motion with the built-in motion sensor module 41); a scene-facing distance sensor ([0075], camera 43) configured to sense an environment ([0074], video supply device 10 may generate videos by using camera images captured by the front face camera 43 of the head-mounted display device 30); an adaptive optical lens (Fig 1, optical elements 33); and processing logic ([0028], control section 11 is, for example, a central processing unit (CPU) and performs various information processing tasks by executing a program stored in the storage section 12) configured to: determine a gaze direction of a user ([0046], measurement results, changes in the motion and orientation of the head-mounted display device 30 are identified); identify an object in the environment associated with the gaze direction ([0057], user may view the video shown and an object that actually exists in the outside world at the same time); drive the scene-facing distance sensor to measure a distance between the head-mounted device and the object associated with the gaze direction ([0057], image forming distance control section 52 performs control such that the image forming distance D changes. This allows the video image to be formed at a distance suitable for details of the application program under execution); and adjust an optical power of the adaptive optical lens in response to the distance between the head-mounted device and the object in the environment ([0079], image forming distance control actuators 34 to change optical distances between the video display elements 32 and the optical elements 33).
Regarding claim 2, Maruyama discloses wherein the adaptive optical lens includes a liquid lens ([0079], liquid crystal lenses, liquid lenses).
Regarding claim 3, Maruyama discloses wherein the adaptive optical lens includes liquid crystals configured to change orientations in response to a voltage applied across the liquid crystals ([0043], voltage applied), and wherein the optical power of the adaptive optical lens changes when the orientation of the liquid crystal changes ([0044], liquid crystal shutter drive circuit 37 is an integrated circuit that operates each of the liquid crystal shutters 36L and 36R based on a control signal input from the control unit 21 of the relay device 20).
Regarding claim 4, Maruyama discloses wherein the scene-facing distance ([0075], camera 43) sensor includes an image sensor (Fig 1, [0048], camera 43 is arranged on the front face of the head-mounted display device 30 and captures a scene in front of the user).
Regarding claim 5, Maruyama discloses wherein the scene-facing distance sensor includes an infrared distance sensor ([0071], infrared sensor 38).
Regarding claim 6, Maruyama discloses wherein adjusting the optical power of the adaptive optical lens includes: matching the distance to a corresponding optical power ([0062], allows the image forming distance D to be changed as circumstances demand with reference to the image forming distance D that matches with the user's eyesight); and driving the corresponding optical power as the optical power on to the adaptive optical lens to focus the object for viewing by an eye of a user of the head-mounted device ([0049], it is possible to adjust the video display position vertically and horizontally in a user's field of view).
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(s) 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruyama (20170315367) in view of Haddick (20200073128).
Regarding claim 7, Maruyama discloses the invention as described within claim 6 but does not teach wherein the corresponding optical power is a prescription correction specific to the user of the head-mounted device. However, in a similar endeavor, Haddick teaches wherein the corresponding optical power is a prescription correction specific to the user of the head-mounted device ([0478], corrective optics can include a prescriptive optic, which includes the ophthalmic prescription (optical power and astigmatism for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the ophthalmic system of Maruyama with the components of Haddick for the purpose of improving the viewing experience of a user (Haddick, [0478]).
Regarding claim 9, Maruyama discloses the invention as described within claim 1 but does not teach wherein identifying the object in the environment associated with the gaze direction includes selecting the object from a plurality of objects included in an environmental map of the environment. However, Haddick teaches wherein identifying the object in the environment associated with the gaze direction includes selecting the object from a plurality of objects included in an environmental map of the environment ([0343], selection of the timing and rate of eye image capture can further be selected in correspondence with input characteristics associated with the wearer including eye blink rate). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the ophthalmic system of Maruyama with the components of Haddick for the purpose of improving the viewing experience of a user (Haddick, [0478]).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruyama (20170315367) in view of Chen (WO 2021147813). An English machine translation is provided for the foreign patent publication.
Regarding claim 8, Maruyama discloses the invention as described within claim 6 but does not teach wherein the corresponding optical power is pre-recorded calibration data. However, Chen teaches wherein the corresponding optical power is pre-recorded calibration data ([0062], optical power level is recorded as a single data point in the internal memory). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the ophthalmic system of Maruyama with the technique of Chen for the purpose of improving the visibility provided by an electronic ophthalmic device (Chen, [0063]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sabovic (20170123234), Hillis (20170075140), and Duong (20120105802) are examples of an eyewear system that utilizes a variable focus tunable lens.
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
Prosecution Insights