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 .
Status Of Claims
This Office Action is in response to an amendment received 3/5/2026 in which Applicant lists claims 2, 4, 10-12, 15, 17-18 as being cancelled, claims 8, 13, 20 as being withdrawn, claims 9, 14 as being withdrawn-currently amended, claims 1, 6-7, 16, 19 as being original, claims 3, 5 as being currently amended, and claims 21-28 as being new. It is interpreted by the examiner that claims 1, 3, 5-9, 13-14, 16, 19-28 are pending.
If applicant is aware of any relevant prior art, or other co-pending application not already of record, they are reminded of their duty under 37 CFR 1.56 to disclose the same.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 3/5/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 8-9, 13-14, 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to at least one nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/5/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) filed on 2/6/2024 was considered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: paragraph [0043] includes a sentence with two periods.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 503 (see at least paragraph [0046]). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 304 (see at least figure 5). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 22 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Paragraph [0046] of the specification supports that the exit surface of the prism may be a spherical cylindrical surface. However, claim 22 includes the limitation wherein “the prism includes a surface having a toroidal shape or spherical cylindrical shape”, without limiting the spherical cylindrical shape to the exit surface (505) of the prism. Therefore, the newly added limitations of claim 22 add new matter. It is noted that claim 23 adds to the limitations of claim 22 and corrects the new matter issue.
Additionally, paragraph [0046] of the specification supports that the exit surface of the prism may have a curvature to correct astigmatism of the eye tracking apparatus (500). However, claim 25 includes the limitation wherein “the prism has a surface that is modified to correct for at least one aberration induced by an eye-tracking camera”, without limiting the surface of the prism which corrects for aberration to the exit surface of the prism. Further, the limitation of claim 25 attributes the aberration to being induced by an eye-tracking camera, whereas paragraph [0046] of the specification attributes the aberration to being induced by the eye tracking apparatus, and does not specifically attribute the aberration to a camera. Therefore, the newly added limitations of claim 25 add new matter.
Claim 26 is rejected for inheriting the same new matter issues of the claims from which it depends.
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 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Popovich et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0041634 A1, of record (hereafter Popovich).
Regarding claim 16, Popovich discloses a method of eye tracking, comprising: in-coupling a light beam into a transparent waveguide (see at least elements 114, 123, para. [0166]) embedded in an eyeglass lens (see at least paras. [0002], [0051]-[0053], [0166], [0212], [0235], [0243], [0256]); transmitting the light beam through the transparent waveguide to an out-coupler (see at least elements 102, 123, para. [0166]); and out-coupling the light beam as collimated rays incident on an eye (see at least paras. [0166], [0168]-[0169]).
Regarding claim 19, Popovich discloses the limitations of claim 16, and further comprising: in-coupling a reflected light beam of collimated rays from the eye into the transparent waveguide (see at least element 101, para. [0166]); transmitting the reflected light beam of collimated rays through the transparent waveguide (see at least element 100, para. [0166]); and out-coupling the reflected light beam of collimated rays to a detector of an eye-tracking camera (see at least elements 115, 113, para. [0166]).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 27, 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullins et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2017/0277259 A1 (hereafter Mullins) in view of Tu et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2024/0168299 A1 (hereafter Tu) and Popovich et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0041634 A1, of record (hereafter Popovich).
Regarding claim 1, Mullins discloses an apparatus, comprising:
a transparent waveguide (see at least element 308, para. [0050]) which may include a lens (see at least the title, paras. [0002], [0027]);
a light source configured to transmit a light beam to the transparent waveguide (see at least element 310, para. [0050]); and
a detector co-located with the light source (see at least element 312, para. [0050]), the transparent waveguide including:
a transmission medium (see at least element 308, para. [0050]);
an in-coupler configured to receive the light beam and couple the light beam into the transmission medium (see at least element 306, para. [0050]); and
an out-coupler configured to direct the light beam out of the transmission medium (see at least element 304, para. [0050]).
Mullins does not specifically disclose that the transparent waveguide is incorporated in a lens, or that the out-coupler diffracts light out of the transmission medium as collimated rays.
However, Tu is related to Mullins as also being drawn to a near-eye display apparatus (see at least the abstracts of Mullins and Tu), wherein Tu teaches a transparent waveguide (see at least elements 420 and 440, para. [0064] of Tu) which may be incorporated in a lens (see at least element 420, para. [0063]; and elements 1110, 1120, para. [0093] of Tu), and that the out-coupler diffracts light out of the transmission medium (see at least paras. [0003], [0031], [0063]-[0064], [0072]-[0073] of Tu).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Mullins to include the teachings of Tu so that the transparent waveguide is incorporated in a lens, and so that the out-coupler diffracts light out of the transmission medium, for the purpose of using a known structure to direct light out of a waveguide display system while having a reasonable expectation for success.
Mullins and Tu does not specifically disclose that the out-coupler diffracts light out of the transmission medium as collimated rays.
However, Popovich is related to Mullins as also being drawn to a near-eye display apparatus (see at least para. [0016] of Popovich), wherein Popovich teaches a transparent waveguide (see at least element 100, para. [0166] of Popovich), wherein out-coupler diffracts light out of a transmission medium as collimated rays (see at least element 102, paras. [0166], [0168]-[0169], [0201] of Popovich).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Mullins in view of Tu to include the teachings of Popovich so that the out-coupler diffracts light out of the transmission medium as collimated rays, for the purpose of using a known structure to diffract light out of a waveguide display system in a desired direction while having a reasonable expectation for success.
Regarding claim 3, Mullins in view of Tu and Popovich discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Mullins does not specifically disclose that the out-coupler includes a volume hologram out-coupler equipped with a customizable diffraction grating.
However, Tu and Popovich further teach that it is known in the optical arts to have an out-couple be a volume hologram out-coupler (i.e. a customizable diffraction grating; see at least Tu, paras. [0003], [0031], [0063]-[0064], [0072], and/or Popovich, paras. [0006], [0255]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Mullins in view of Tu and Popovich to include the further teachings of Tu and/or Popovich so that the out-coupler includes a volume hologram out-coupler equipped with a customizable diffraction grating, for the purpose of using a known diffractive structure to diffract light out of a waveguide display system with a high diffraction efficiency while having a reasonable expectation for success.
Regarding claim 6, Mullins in view of Tu and Popovich discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Mullins does not specifically disclose that the transmission medium includes a transparent photopolymer material.
However, Popovich further teaches that it is known in the optical arts to have a diffractive optical element include a transparent photopolymer material (see at least Popovich, paras. [0006]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Mullins in view of Tu and Popovich to include the further teachings of Popovich so that the transmission medium includes a transparent photopolymer material, for the purpose of using a known material to form a diffractive transmission medium having desired optical properties while having a reasonable expectation for success.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a diffractive transmission medium from transparent photopolymer material, since it has been held to be within the ordinary skill of workers in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. One would have been motivated to have the transmission medium include a transparent photopolymer material, for the purpose of using a known material to form a diffractive transmission medium having desired optical properties while having a reasonable expectation for success. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Regarding claim 27, Mullins in view of Tu and Popovich discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Mullins does not specifically disclose that a holographic optical element of the out-coupler is configured such that light rays that satisfy a Bragg condition are coupled into the transparent waveguide.
However, Tu and Popovich further teach that a holographic optical element of the out-coupler is configured such that light rays that satisfy a Bragg condition are coupled into the transparent waveguide (see at least Tu, paras. [0003], [0031], [0063]-[0064], [0072], and/or Popovich, paras. [0006], [0255]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Mullins in view of Tu and Popovich to include the further teachings of Tu and/or Popovich so that the holographic optical element of the out-coupler is configured such that light rays that satisfy a Bragg condition are coupled into the transparent waveguide, for the purpose of using a known diffractive structure to diffract light into a waveguide display system with a high diffraction efficiency while having a reasonable expectation for success.
Regarding claim 28, Mullins in view of Tu and Popovich discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Mullins does not specifically disclose that a holographic optical element of the out-coupler is part of a group of holographic optical elements arranged into an array.
However, Popovich further teaches that the diffractive grating element of the out-coupler may be part of a group of holographic optical elements arranged into an array (see at least Popovich, paras. [0024], [0028], [0051], [0054], [0098], [0149], [0166], [0170], [0172], [0173]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Mullins in view of Tu and Popovich to include the further teachings of Popovich so that the out-coupler is part of a group of holographic optical elements arranged into an array, for the purpose of using a known diffractive structure to diffract light in desired directions, enabling diffraction of light uniformly along the waveguide, and/or to produce diffracted light with desired prescription(s).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullins et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2017/0277259 A1 (hereafter Mullins) in view of Tu et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2024/0168299 A1 (hereafter Tu) and Popovich et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0041634 A1, of record (hereafter Popovich) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cakmakci et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2016/0357016 A1 (hereafter Cakmakci).
Regarding claim 5, Mullins in view of Tu and Popovich does not specifically disclose that the in-coupler includes a prism that has an index of refraction matched to an index of refraction of the transparent waveguide.
However, Popovich further teaches using index matched glue to a display to a head-mounted device (see at least paragraph [0256] of Popovich).
Additionally, Cakmakci is related to Mullins as also being drawn to a near-eye display apparatus (see at least the abstract of Cakmakci), wherein Cakmakci teaches a transparent waveguide (see at least element 105, paragraph [0018] of Cakmakci) including a further optical element having an index of refraction matched to an index of refraction of the transparent waveguide (see at least element 110, paragraph [0018] of Cakmakci).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Mullins in view of Tu and Popovich to include the teachings of Cakmakci so that the in-coupler prism of Mullins includes has an index of refraction matched to an index of refraction of the transparent waveguide, for the purpose of using a known technique to reduce optical aberrations and reflections where light travels between two different optical elements while having a reasonable expectation for success.
Claims 21-23, 25, 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullins et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2017/0277259 A1 (hereafter Mullins) in view of Tu et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2024/0168299 A1 (hereafter Tu), Popovich et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0041634 A1, of record (hereafter Popovich) and Cakmakci et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2016/0357016 A1 (hereafter Cakmakci) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Droessler et al., U.S. Patent Number 6,147,807 (hereafter Droessler).
Regarding claim 21, Mullins in view of Tu, Popovich and Cakmakci does not specifically disclose that the prism has a surface that is modified to correct for at least one aberration induced by the prism.
However, Cakmakci further teaches that prism structures may be used to compensate for aberrations produced by other optical structures (see at least paragraph [0034] of Cakmakci).
Additionally, Droessler is related to Mullins as also being drawn to a near-eye display apparatus (see at least the abstract of Droessler), wherein Droessler teaches that it is well-known in the optical arts to have prism surfaces have a desired shape, such as a toroidal shape, to enable correction for aberrations (see at least col. 2, line 55 through col. 3, line 65 of Droessler).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Mullins in view of Tu, Popovich and Cakmakci to include the teachings of Droessler so that the prism has a surface that is modified to correct for at least one aberration induced by the prism, for the purpose of using a well-known technique of modifying surface shapes to correct for aberrations while having a reasonable expectation for success.
Regarding claim 22, Mullins in view of Tu, Popovich and Cakmakci does not specifically disclose that the prism includes a surface having a toroidal shape or spherical cylindrical shape.
However, Cakmakci further teaches that prism structures may be used to compensate for aberrations produced by other optical structures (see at least paragraph [0034] of Cakmakci).
Additionally, Droessler is related to Mullins as also being drawn to a near-eye display apparatus (see at least the abstract of Droessler), wherein Droessler teaches that it is well-known in the optical arts to have prism surfaces have a desired shape, such as a toroidal shape, to enable correction for aberrations (see at least col. 2, line 55 through col. 3, line 65 of Droessler).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Mullins in view of Tu, Popovich and Cakmakci to include the teachings of Droessler so that the prism includes a surface having a toroidal shape or spherical cylindrical shape, for the purpose of using a well-known technique of modifying surface shapes to correct for aberrations while having a reasonable expectation for success.
Regarding claim 23, Mullins in view of Tu, Popovich and Cakmakci does not specifically disclose that the surface is an exit surface of the prism at which the light beam exits the prism.
However, Droessler additionally teaches that it is well-known in the optical arts to have various prism surfaces have a desired shape to enable correction for aberrations (see at least col. 2, line 55 through col. 3, line 65 of Droessler).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Mullins in view of Tu, Popovich, Cakmakci and Droessler to include the further teachings of Droessler so that the surface is an exit surface of the prism at which the light beam exits the prism, for the purpose of using a well-known technique of modifying surface shapes to correct for aberrations while having a reasonable expectation for success.
Regarding claim 25, Mullins in view of Tu, Popovich and Cakmakci does not specifically disclose that the prism has a surface that is modified to correct for at least one aberration induced by an eye-tracking camera.
However, Cakmakci further teaches that prism structures may be used to compensate for aberrations produced by other optical structures (see at least paragraph [0034] of Cakmakci).
Additionally, Droessler is related to Mullins as also being drawn to a near-eye display apparatus (see at least the abstract of Droessler), wherein Droessler teaches that it is well-known in the optical arts to have prism surfaces have a desired shape, such as a toroidal shape, to enable correction for aberrations (see at least col. 2, line 55 through col. 3, line 65 of Droessler).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Mullins in view of Tu, Popovich and Cakmakci to include the teachings of Droessler so that the prism has a surface that is modified to correct for at least one aberration induced by an eye-tracking camera, for the purpose of using a well-known technique of modifying surface shapes to correct for aberrations while having a reasonable expectation for success.
Regarding claim 26, Mullins in view of Tu, Popovich and Cakmakci does not specifically disclose that the surface is an exit surface of the prism at which the light beam exits the prism.
However, Droessler additionally teaches that it is well-known in the optical arts to have various prism surfaces have a desired shape to enable correction for aberrations (see at least col. 2, line 55 through col. 3, line 65 of Droessler).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Mullins in view of Tu, Popovich, Cakmakci and Droessler to include the further teachings of Droessler so that the surface is an exit surface of the prism at which the light beam exits the prism, for the purpose of using a well-known technique of modifying surface shapes to correct for aberrations while having a reasonable expectation for success.
Claims 21, 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullins et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2017/0277259 A1 (hereafter Mullins) in view of Tu et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2024/0168299 A1 (hereafter Tu), Popovich et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0041634 A1, of record (hereafter Popovich) and Cakmakci et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2016/0357016 A1 (hereafter Cakmakci) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Cheng et al., U.S. Patent Number 11,327,308 B2 (hereafter Cheng).
Regarding claim 21, Mullins in view of Tu, Popovich and Cakmakci does not specifically disclose that the prism has a surface that is modified to correct for at least one aberration induced by the prism.
However, Cakmakci further teaches that prism structures may be used to compensate for aberrations produced by other optical structures (see at least paragraph [0034] of Cakmakci).
Additionally, Cheng is related to Mullins as also being drawn to a near-eye display apparatus (see at least the title of Cheng), wherein Cheng teaches that it is well-known in the optical arts to have prism surfaces have a desired shape to enable correction for aberrations (see at least elements 10, 101, 102 and 103, col. 3, lines 45-61; col. 4, line 42 through col. 5, line 37; col. 5, line 63 through col. 6, line 21; and col. 9, lines 50-67 of Cheng), to include at least one custom lens in a prism system to further correct aberrations (see at elements 20, 30 and/or 30A, least col. 3, lines 45-61; col. 4, line 42 through col. 5, line 37; col. 5, line 63 through col. 6, line 21; and col. 9, lines 50-67 of Cheng), and wherein auxiliary lenses may be formed of the same material as the prism element (see at least col. 5, lines 19-31 of Cheng).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Mullins in view of Tu, Popovich and Cakmakci to include the teachings of Cheng so that the prism has a surface that is modified to correct for at least one aberration induced by the prism, for the purpose of using a well-known technique of modifying surface shapes to correct for aberrations while having a reasonable expectation for success.
Regarding claim 24, Mullins in view of Tu, Popovich and Cakmakci does not specifically disclose that the prism is modified to include at least one custom lens.
However, Cheng is related to Mullins as also being drawn to a near-eye display apparatus (see at least the title of Cheng), wherein Cheng teaches that it is well-known in the optical arts to have prism surfaces have a desired shape to enable correction for aberrations (see at least elements 10, 101, 102 and 103, col. 3, lines 45-61; col. 4, line 42 through col. 5, line 37; col. 5, line 63 through col. 6, line 21; and col. 9, lines 50-67 of Cheng), to include at least one custom lens in a prism system to further correct aberrations (see at elements 20, 30 and/or 30A, least col. 3, lines 45-61; col. 4, line 42 through col. 5, line 37; col. 5, line 63 through col. 6, line 21; and col. 9, lines 50-67 of Cheng), and wherein auxiliary lenses may be formed of the same material as the prism element (see at least col. 5, lines 19-31 of Cheng).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Mullins in view of Tu, Popovich and Cakmakci to include the teachings of Cheng so that the prism is modified to include at least one custom lens, for the purpose of using a known lens and prism system structure to correct for aberrations while having a reasonable expectation for success.
Regarding claim 25, Mullins in view of Tu, Popovich and Cakmakci does not specifically disclose that the prism has a surface that is modified to correct for at least one aberration induced by an eye-tracking camera.
However, Cakmakci further teaches that prism structures may be used to compensate for aberrations produced by other optical structures (see at least paragraph [0034] of Cakmakci).
Additionally, Cheng is related to Mullins as also being drawn to a near-eye display apparatus (see at least the title of Cheng), wherein Cheng teaches that it is well-known in the optical arts to have prism surfaces have a desired shape to enable correction for aberrations (see at least elements 10, 101, 102 and 103, col. 3, lines 45-61; col. 4, line 42 through col. 5, line 37; col. 5, line 63 through col. 6, line 21; and col. 9, lines 50-67 of Cheng), to include at least one custom lens in a prism system to further correct aberrations (see at elements 20, 30 and/or 30A, least col. 3, lines 45-61; col. 4, line 42 through col. 5, line 37; col. 5, line 63 through col. 6, line 21; and col. 9, lines 50-67 of Cheng), and wherein auxiliary lenses may be formed of the same material as the prism element (see at least col. 5, lines 19-31 of Cheng).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Mullins in view of Tu, Popovich and Cakmakci to include the teachings of Cheng so that the prism has a surface that is modified to correct for at least one aberration induced by an eye-tracking camera, for the purpose of using a well-known technique of modifying surface shapes to correct for aberrations while having a reasonable expectation for success.
Regarding claim 26, Mullins in view of Tu, Popovich and Cakmakci does not specifically disclose that the surface is an exit surface of the prism at which the light beam exits the prism.
However, Cheng additionally teaches that it is well-known in the optical arts to have various prism surfaces have a desired shape to enable correction for aberrations (see at least elements 10, 101, 102 and 103, col. 3, lines 45-61; col. 4, line 42 through col. 5, line 37; col. 5, line 63 through col. 6, line 21; and col. 9, lines 50-67 of Cheng).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Mullins in view of Tu, Popovich, Cakmakci and Cheng to include the further teachings of Cheng so that the surface is an exit surface of the prism at which the light beam exits the prism, for the purpose of using a well-known technique of modifying surface shapes to correct for aberrations while having a reasonable expectation for success.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullins et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2017/0277259 A1 (hereafter Mullins) in view of Lou et al., U.S. Patent Number 9,625,723 B2 (hereafter Lou), Tu et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2024/0168299 A1 (hereafter Tu) and Popovich et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0041634 A1, of record (hereafter Popovich).
Regarding claim 7, Mullins discloses eyewear (see at least para. [0026]), comprising:
a lens (see at least the title, paras. [0002], [0027]);
and
a illumination system (see at least figures 3A-3C), including:
a transparent waveguide (see at least element 308, para. [0050]),
an in-coupler configured to receive an incident light beam and couple the incident light beam into the transparent waveguide (see at least element 306, para. [0050]);
a out-coupler configured to direct the incident light beam out of the transparent waveguide and to couple a reflected light beam into the transparent waveguide (see at least element 304, para. [0050]); and
an illuminator (see at least element 310, para. [0050]), the illuminator including:
a light source and configured to transmit an incident light beam from the light source to the in-coupler (see at least element 310, para. [0050]); and
a detector configured to receive the reflected light beam from the in-coupler (see at least element 312, para. [0050]).
Mullins does not specifically disclose a frame including a temple and an arm and, attached to the arm, a lens-supporting portion extending in a direction substantially transverse to the arm; a telecentric illumination system; that the transparent waveguide is embedded in a lens, or that the out-coupler diffracts light out of and into the transmission medium as collimated rays.
However, Lou is related to Mullins as also being drawn to a near-eye display apparatus (see at least the abstracts of Mullins and Lou), wherein Lou teaches a telecentric system (see at least col. 1, lines 18-37; col. 3, lines 40-50; and col. 5, line 54 through col. 6, line 54 of Lou), and a frame including a temple and an arm and, attached to the arm, a lens-supporting portion extending in a direction substantially transverse to the arm (see at least figure 2 of Lou).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Mullins to include the teachings of Lou so that apparatus includes a frame including a temple and an arm and, attached to the arm, a lens-supporting portion extending in a direction substantially transverse to the arm, and a telecentric illumination system, for the purpose of using a known structure for incorporating a display device into eyewear, and for including a telecentric illumination system for perspective errors and distortion.
Additionally, Tu is related to Mullins as also being drawn to a near-eye display apparatus (see at least the abstracts of Mullins and Tu), wherein Tu teaches a transparent waveguide (see at least elements 420 and 440, para. [0064] of Tu) which may be incorporated in a lens (see at least element 420, para. [0063]; and elements 1110, 1120, para. [0093] of Tu), and that the out-coupler diffracts light out of the transmission medium (see at least paras. [0003], [0031], [0063]-[0064], [0072]-[0073] of Tu).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Mullins in view of Lou to include the teachings of Tu so that the transparent waveguide is incorporated in a lens, and so that the out-coupler diffracts light out of the transmission medium, for the purpose of using a known structure to direct light out of a waveguide display system while having a reasonable expectation for success.
Mullins, Lou and Tu does not specifically disclose that the out-coupler diffracts light out of the transmission medium as collimated rays.
However, Popovich is related to Mullins as also being drawn to a near-eye display apparatus (see at least para. [0016] of Popovich), wherein Popovich teaches a transparent waveguide (see at least element 100, para. [0166] of Popovich), wherein out-coupler diffracts light out of a transmission medium as collimated rays (see at least element 102, paras. [0166], [0168]-[0169], [0201] of Popovich).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Mullins in view of Lou and Tu to include the teachings of Popovich so that the out-coupler diffracts light out of the transmission medium as collimated rays, for the purpose of using a known structure to diffract light out of a waveguide display system in a desired direction while having a reasonable expectation for success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEREK S. CHAPEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8042. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6pm.
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, Stephone B. Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/Derek S. Chapel/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 3/18/2026
Derek S. CHAPEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872