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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office action is in response to amendment filed 4/7/2026. Accordingly, claims 33-34 were amended; claim 32 was withdrawn; and claims 11-31 and 33-34 are pending for examination.
Election/Restrictions
Claim 32 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected in accordance with previous Office action mailed 1/12/2026. Note Applicant did not provide any argument in respond to withdraw from consideration from previous Office action. Thus, claim 32 is maintained to be withdrawn from consideration in this Office action. Applicant is reminded to cancel claim 32 in next response.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 11-17, 20, 24, 28, 31 and 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toride (US 2022/0413296 A1) in view of Elazhary et al. (US 11,202,043 B1, hereinafter Elazhary).
Regarding claim 11, Toride discloses glasses (figure 1, a headset 100 implemented as an eyewear device), comprising: a housing (figure 1A, display assembly 120); a waveguide supported by the housing ([0022], display assembly 120 may use a projector assembly and a waveguide assembly to provide light to the user); a display configured to supply an image to the waveguide, wherein the waveguide provides the image to an eye box ([0024] and [0052], display assembly 120 monitors movements in a waveguide assembly and corrects for aberrations in image light caused by the monitored movements, and display controller 250 may then use the estimated amount of misalignment to determine mechanical movement instructions for actuators to move the waveguide assembly 220 into a position that allows for the user to view correctly projected images). Toride does not specifically disclosing that the display is configured to adjust the image based on measured misalignment between the display and the waveguide. However, Elazhary teaches that an apparatus 700A may be used to determine binocular disparity in any display device conveying images to eyes of a user by dedicated left and right waveguides or waveguide assemblies, and the visual images generated by the left and right display projectors for observation by a user may be digitally adjusted to compensate when a relative tilt is detected (col. 10 line 54 through col. 11 line 19) in order to reducing the form factor of a display (col. 3 lines 20-30). 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 Toride in having that the display is configured to adjust the image based on measured misalignment between the display and the waveguide, as per teaching of
Regarding claim 12, Toride discloses that the housing comprises a glasses frame (figure 1A, 110 and [0020], headset 100 includes a frame).
Regarding claim 13, Toride discloses that the display comprises a projector display ([0022], the display assembly 120 may use a projector assembly and a waveguide assembly to provide light to the user).
Regarding claim 14, Toride discloses a display position sensor (figure 7, 740) configured to measure a display orientation of the projector display ([0082], position sensor 740 generates one or more measurement signals in response to motion of the headset 705).
Regarding claim 15, Toride teaches that the display is configured to adjust the image based at least partly on the display orientation ([0049], the display controller 250 may periodically check for movements while the display assembly 200 is in active use).
Regarding claim 16, Toride teaches a waveguide position sensor configured to measure a waveguide orientation of the waveguide ([0049], the display controller 250 may use a supplemental sensor to determine when to check for a movement in the waveguide assembly 220).
Regarding claim 17, Toride does not teaches the claimed limitations, but Elazhary teaches that the display is configured to adjust the image based at least partly on the measured waveguide orientation (col. 3 lines 20-30, the images generated by the left and right eye projectors may be adjusted to compensate to enable binocular disparity caused by the misalignment between waveguides and the projectors to be lessened, or even completely eliminated) in order to reduce the form factor of a display. 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 Toride in having that the display is configured to adjust the image based at least partly on the measured waveguide orientation, as per teaching of Elazhary, in order to reduce the form factor of a display.
Regarding claim 20, Toride teaches that the display position sensor comprises a first inertial measurement unit attached to the display ([0033], the position sensor 190 generates one or more measurement signals in response to motion of the headset and position sensor 190 may include an inertial measurement unit (IMU). Toride does not specifically disclosing that the waveguide position sensor comprises a second inertial measurement unit attached to the waveguide. However, Elazhary teaches that the waveguide position sensor comprises a second inertial measurement unit attached to the waveguide (figure 6 and col. 10 lines 40-53, a display including first 602A and second 602B waveguides includes first 600A and second 600B tilt sensors of the first 602A and second 602B waveguides respectively).
Regarding claim 24, Toride discloses the glass (figure 1A, 100) comprising a position sensor (figure 1A, 190), wherein the waveguide helps prevent the position sensor from being exposed to moisture ([0060], piezoelectric movement sensors are located at the side of the display assembly 300 closer to the environment, i.e., distal from an eye of a user, in order to prevent from being exposed to moisture).
Regarding claim 28, Toride discloses that the display has a display housing (figure 1A, 120) the glasses further comprising: a position sensor (figure 1A, 190) mounted on a substrate that is attached to the display housing ([0021] and [0033], the frame 110 includes a front part that holds the one or more display elements 120 and position sensor 190 may be located external to the IMU, internal to the IMU, or some combination thereof).
Regarding claim 31, Toride teaches an additional position sensor mounted to the waveguide (figures 3-4 and [0062], piezoelectric movement sensors are located only over a peripheral region of a waveguide assembly 425).
Regarding claim 33, the limitations of the claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 11.
Regarding claim 34, the limitations of the claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 20.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toride (US 2022/0413296 A1) in view of Elazhary et al. (US 11,202,043 B1, hereinafter Elazhary) as applied in claims above, and further in view of Bradski et al. (US 2019/0094981 A1, hereinafter Bradski).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Toride and Elazhary discloses that the display is configured to adjust the image based on measured misalignment between the display and the waveguide (Elazhary, col. 10 line 54 through col. 11 line 19). The combination of Toride and Elazhary differs from the claimed invention in not specifically teaching that the display is configured to adjust the image by warping the image to compensate for image warping due to misalignment between the projector display and the waveguide. However, Bradski teaches variable focus element (VFE) is positioned to be optically conjugate to the exit pupil, in order to allow adjustments of focus without simultaneously affecting image magnification or zoom, and software may be used to compensate for optical magnification changes and any distortions by pre-scaling or warping the images to be presented. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Toride and Elazhary in having that the display is configured to adjust the image by warping the image to compensate for image warping due to misalignment between the projector display and the waveguide, as per teaching of Bradski, in order to allows for high quality and accuracy in creating image on the display.
Regarding claim 19, Toride discloses that the glasses are operable with a peripheral having a position sensor configured to measure a position of the peripheral and wherein the display is configured to adjust the image based at least partly on the measured position of the peripheral ([0042] and [0048], piezoelectric movement sensors 230 may be co-located with the waveguide assembly 220 or at a location of the display assembly 200 proximal to the waveguide assembly 220, and the display controller 250 may determine an estimated amount of aberration based on at least the movement monitored by the piezoelectric movement sensors 230).
Claims 21-22 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toride (US 2022/0413296 A1) in view of Elazhary et al. (US 11,202,043 B1, hereinafter Elazhary) as applied in claims above, and further in view of Son et al. (US 2022/0179218 A1, hereinafter Son).
Regarding claim 21, Toride discloses a display position sensor configured to measure a display orientation of the projector display ([0049], display controller 250 may use a supplemental sensor to determine when to check for a movement in the waveguide assembly 220). The combination of Toride and Elazhary differs from the claimed invention in not specifically teaching that the housing is configured to form a sealed environmental protection enclosure for the display position sensor. However, Son teaches the sensor unit may be located inside an eyeglass frame, and the control unit and the operation unit may be located inside the eyeglass temple ([0021] and [0075]) in order to accurately measure. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Toride and Elazhary in having that the housing is configured to form a sealed environmental protection enclosure for the display position sensor, as per teaching of Son, in order to accurately measure.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Toride and Elazhary differs from the claimed invention in not specifically disclosing an environmentally sealed position sensor. However, Son teaches that the sensor unit may be located inside an eyeglass frame to form an environmentally sealed position sensor ([0021] and [0075]) in order to accurately measure. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Toride and Elazhary in having an environmentally sealed position sensor, as per teaching of Son, in order to accurately measure.
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Toride and Elazhary differs from the claimed invention in not specifically disclosing a position sensor enclosure that provides the position sensor with environmental protection. However, Son teaches that the sensor unit may be located inside an eyeglass frame to form an environmentally sealed position sensor ([0021] and [0075]) in order to accurately measure. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Toride and Elazhary in having a position sensor enclosure that provides the position sensor with environmental protection, as per teaching of Son, in order to accurately measure.
Claims 23 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toride (US 2022/0413296 A1) in view of Elazhary et al. (US 11,202,043 B1, hereinafter Elazhary) as applied in claims above, and further in view of Webster et al. (US 7,059,040 B1, hereinafter Webster).
Regarding claim 23, Toride discloses a position sensor (figure 1A, 190). The combination of Toride and Elazhary differs from the claimed invention in not specifically disclosing a lens that helps prevent the position sensor from being exposed to moisture. However, Webster teaches lens housing includes a mounting surface, which has a width sufficient to provide a desired level of protection, e.g., a hermetic seal, of the image sensor from the ambient environment in order to enhance environmental protection of the optical module (col. 1 lines 42-66). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Toride and Elazhary in having a lens that helps prevent the position sensor from being exposed to moisture, as per teaching of Webster, in order to enhance environmental protection of the optical module.
Regarding claim 30, the combination of Toride and Elazhary differs from the claimed invention in not specifically disclosing that the position sensor enclosure comprises moisture-blocking polymer. However, Webster teaches adhesive 302, read as moisture-blocking polymer, forms a seal between lens housing 130 and substrate 102, which protects image sensor 108 from environmental degradation, e.g., from dust and moisture. More particularly, substrate 102, lens housing 130 and adhesive 302 form an enclosure around image sensor 108 and protect image sensor 108 from the ambient environment (col. 7 lines 43-49). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Toride and Elazhary in having moisture-blocking polymer, as per teaching of webster, in order to protect image sensor from environmental degradation.
Claims 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toride (US 2022/0413296 A1) in view of Elazhary et al. (US 11,202,043 B1, hereinafter Elazhary) as applied in claims above, and further in view of Nakamura (US 2018/0292673 A1).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Toride and Elazhary differs from the claimed invention in not specifically disclosing that the housing comprises a main portion and a temple coupled to the main portion by a hinge. However, Nakamura discloses a housing (figure 1, 10) comprises a main portion (figure 1, 12) and a temple (figure 1, 16) coupled to the main portion by a hinge (figure 1, 14 and [0039]) in order to make user friendly. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Toride and Elazhary in having a main portion and a temple coupled to the main portion by a hinge, as per teaching of Nakamura, in order to make user friendly.
Regarding claim 26, Toride discloses that the waveguide is supported by the main portion of the housing in front of the eye box (figure 4 and [0062], a peripheral region of a waveguide assembly 425).
Regarding claim 27, Toride discloses that the display (figure 1A, 120) is disposed at the main portion of the housing (figure 1A, 100). The combination of Toride and Elazhary differs from the claimed invention in not specifically teaching that the display is disposed at the main portion of the housing adjacent to the hinge and aligned with the temple. However, Nakamura teaches such ((figure 1 and [0039]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Toride and Elazhary in having that the display is disposed at the main portion of the housing adjacent to the hinge and aligned with the temple, as per teaching of Nakamura, in order to make user friendly.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 11-31 and 33-34 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Callens (US 2024/0179284 A1) discloses a waveguide display system having a display panel that may be adjusted to compensate for the misalignment between the waveguide and light source in an assembly of a binocular display system to reduce or otherwise mitigate the undesired optical artifacts caused by the misalignment or relative movement (abstract and [0039]).
Kalinowski et al. (US 2024/0402500 A1) discloses head-mounted device applying a geometric transform to image data provided to the displays, thus warping the images produced by the displays to compensate for the measured misalignment (abstract).
Kasar et al. (US 2024/0210712 A1) discloses an image warping due to measured misalignment between the displays and waveguides may then be removed by applying compensating image warping to the images being produced by the display (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE ENG whose telephone number is (571)272-7495. The examiner can normally be reached Flex M to F, 7 am to 3 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, James A Kramer can be reached at (571) 272-6783. 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.
/GEORGE ENG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2699
Prosecution Insights