DETAILED ACTION
*Note in the following document:
1. Texts in italic bold format are limitations quoted either directly or conceptually from claims/descriptions disclosed in the instant application.
2. Texts in regular italic format are quoted directly from cited reference or Applicant’s arguments.
3. Texts with underlining are added by the Examiner for emphasis.
4. Texts with
5. Acronym “PHOSITA” stands for “Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art”.
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 is in response to applicant’s amendment/response file on 10 December 2025, which has been entered and made of record. Claims 1-12 has/have been amended. No Claim has been added or cancelled. Claims 1-12 are pending in the application. Note the status of Claim 1/11/12 filed on 10 December 2025 was indicated as “Previously Presented”. Since Claim filed by applicant dated on 4 December 2025 was filed after the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 4 September 2025 and has not been entered, the corrected status of Claim 1/11/12 should be labeled as “Currently Amended”. For compact prosecution, the Examiner examines Claim 1/11/12 as those claims are labeled as “Currently Amended”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p.5, filed on 4 December 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of Claim(s) 1/11/12 under 35 USC §103 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection. The newly amended Claim(s) 1/11/12 is/are now rejected under 35 USC §102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Laffont et al. (US 2020/0051320 A1). See detailed rejections below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-6 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Laffont et al. (US 2020/0051320 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Laffont discloses a glasses-type display device that is capable of allowing a user to visually recognize a display image displayed on a display unit as a virtual image together with a real space ([0002]: The following disclosure relates to methods, devices and systems for adjusting focus of displays and in particular to the use of the same in near-eye displays or head-mounted displays. See Fig.6: HMD as a glass-type display device. [0012]: Further, the virtual environment may include one of a virtual reality environment, an augmented reality environment, a mixed reality environment or a digital reality environment), comprising:
the display unit that displays the display image as the virtual image ([0080]: In accordance with an embodiment of the present application, there is provided a method for adjusting the focus of a display system comprising: at least one mechanism or a controller/processing unit or a combination of both for obtaining the desired position of a virtual image), and
a processor (Fig.10 and [0165]: FIG. 10 illustrates a schematic of a system 1000 for viewing a virtual environment 1004 through an optical system 1008, which depicts how different parts of the system interact with each other. The system 1000 comprises the optical system 1008 configured to view the virtual environment 1004 on a display 1010; at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program code. In the embodiment shown in FIG. 10, the at least one processor and at least one memory including computer program code are not shown, and are implemented in a control unit 1006, which is interchangeably referred to as a controller),
PNG
media_image1.png
428
513
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the processor performs image processing based on a visual characteristic of the user on the display image, and displays the display image after the image processing on the display unit (Fig.3 and [0124]-[0126]: Step 332: obtaining the characteristics of a user; Step 334: obtaining the desired distance of focus; and Step 336: modifying the focus of the display system and adjusting the content shown on said display according to said desired distance of focus. [0009]: The method may further include receiving an input, the input being information including at least one of a characteristic of the user's eyesight, an eyeglasses prescription of the user, eyesight information of the user, demographic information of the user or a state of an eye condition of the user and determining the focus of the optical system may be performed in response to the received input).
PNG
media_image2.png
261
473
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Laffont discloses wherein the image processing is processing of converting an image quality of the display image into an image quality simulating the visual characteristic of the user ([0127]: Furthermore, said characteristics may include the user's eyeglasses prescription, including the degree of myopia and hyperopia in each eye. Fig.3E and [0031]: FIG. 3E shows a flowchart depicting a method for adjusting the focus of a display system and adjusting the content shown on said display according to the characteristics of a user and visual content displayed, in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention. [0113]: In one embodiment, the displayed image is modified to create depth-of-field blur in regions of the image corresponding to objects at distances different from the current focus. A computer-implemented depth-of-field blur method may take as input the rendered image, scene and/or image depth, the current accommodation state of the user and the current focus of the optical system. The software implementation may use depth-dependent disc filters to blur the image, or other algorithms as understood by those skilled in the art).
Regarding Claim 3, Laffont discloses wherein the processor changes a degree of simulating the visual characteristic according to a preset condition ([0114]: In another embodiment, the displayed image is modified to create a retinal image substantially similar to the retinal images that would be observed if the virtual environment was observed in the real world. A computer-implemented artificial retinal blur may take as input the rendered image, scene and/or image depth, the current accommodation state of the user and the current focus of the optical system. Also see [0031[, [0127] and [0113] cited in rejection of Claim 2. The condition can be interpreted as the condition of focus distance due to depth-dependent retinal blur or user’s visual characteristic such as user’s eyeglasses prescription including the degree of myopia and hyperopia in each eye).
Regarding Claim 4, Laffont discloses wherein, in a case in which the condition is satisfied, the processor reduces the degree of simulating the visual characteristic as compared with a case in which the condition is not satisfied ([0111]-[0112]: In addition, a limitation of a display system with a single plane of focus, even if said focus is modified as described above, is that the image may be perceived as uniformly sharp when the user accommodates to said plane of focus. In contrast, most images in the real world captured by a real eye contain non-uniformly blurred regions, due to depth-dependent retinal blur. Various embodiments of the present application provide varifocal distortion correction to overcome the above mentioned drawbacks brought about by the change in image size, image position, or distortions during focus adjustment of the optical system, and to overcome to above mentioned limitation of the display system with a single plane of focus which results in the perceived image having a uniform sharpness. Laffont teaches adjusting sharpness of virtual image according to desired distance focus and user’s characteristic including user’s visual characteristic as disclosed in [0127] and Fig.3D. Laffont discloses processing virtual image to create a non-uniformly blurred effect as described in [0111]-[0113]. Therefore Laffont discloses wherein, in a case in which the condition is satisfied, the processor reduces the degree of simulating the visual characteristic as compared with a case in which the condition is not satisfied since the condition can be interpreted as the condition of focus distance due to depth-dependent retinal blur or user’s visual characteristic such as user’s eyeglasses prescription including the degree of myopia and hyperopia in each eye).
Regarding Claim 5, Laffont discloses wherein the condition is a condition based on at least one of an attribute of the display image or an attribute of the user ( [0181]: In view of the above, various embodiments of the present application provide methods and systems for viewing a virtual environment through an optical system. The methods and systems advantageously combine the dioptric adjustment of optical systems with the modification of images shown on displays, and may take into account the position and gaze direction of users, as well as the visual content shown on the display. Fig.3D: notice the characteristic of a user and desired distance of focus).
Regarding Claim 6, Laffont discloses wherein the attribute includes at least one of a display content or an evaluation value predetermined according to the display content ([0181]: In view of the above, various embodiments of the present application provide methods and systems for viewing a virtual environment through an optical system. The methods and systems advantageously combine the dioptric adjustment of optical systems with the modification of images shown on displays, and may take into account the position and gaze direction of users, as well as the visual content shown on the display).
Regarding Claim 8, Laffont discloses wherein the visual characteristic is visual acuity of the user, and the image processing is processing of blurring the display image ([0009]: The method may further include receiving an input, the input being information including at least one of a characteristic of the user's eyesight, an eyeglasses prescription of the user, eyesight information of the user, demographic information of the user or a state of an eye condition of the user and determining the focus of the optical system may be performed in response to the received input. [0011]: Modifying the rendering of the virtual environment may also include modifying a rendering of the virtual environment in response to the reconfiguring of the optical system in order to make the retinal image created by a viewing of the virtual environment through the optical system substantially similar to a retinal image that would be created if the virtual environment was observed in the real world or may include modifying the virtual environment in response to the reconfiguring of the optical system using computer-implemented depth-of-field blur to create depth-of-field blur in one or more regions of the perceived image of the virtual environment or may include modifying the virtual environment in response to the reconfiguring of the optical system using computer simulations of eye models which take into account characteristics of the eye of the user).
Regarding Claim 9, Laffont discloses wherein the processor determines a degree of blurriness of the display image based on a distance from the user to an insertion position of the virtual image in the real space and the visual acuity (Fig.3D and [0030]: FIG. 3D shows a flowchart depicting a method for adjusting the focus of a display system and adjusting the content shown on said display according to the characteristics of a user, in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention. [0115]: In some embodiments, the modification of the image to create depth-of-field or retinal blur may take place substantially simultaneously with the adjustment of the focus of the optical system. Advantageously, this may induce an initial accommodative response in the user's eye and decrease the perceived latency of the adjustment of the adaptive optical system. Another advantage is that it may increase the perception of realism for the use. [0056]: a method, device and system for adjusting the content shown on a display according to a focus adjustment of a display system, such that the size and position of the image perceived from a specific position remain substantially the same after focus adjustment. Perceived images include images captured by a camera placed at the specific position. The captured images remain substantially similar in size and position when observed from a specific position. Advantageously, a user whose eye is located at the specific position will not perceive a substantial variation in the image before said user's eye starts accommodating as a result of the focus change).
Regarding Claim 10, Laffont discloses wherein the processor detects the visual acuity of the user and performs the image processing according to the detected visual acuity ([0130]: In some embodiments, the eyeglasses prescription of a user is measured electronically or is provided before the use of an embodiment of this invention. It may be measured with an embedded or external device which transmits the information to an embodiment of the invention. Also see Fig.3D).
Regarding Claim 11, Claim 11 is/are similar to Claim 1 except in the format of method. Therefore the same reason(s) for rejection is/are applied to Claim 1 is/are also applied to Claim 11.
Regarding Claim 12, Claim 12 is/are similar to Claim 1 except in the format of non-transitory storage medium. Therefore the same reason(s) for rejection is/are applied to Claim 1 is/are also applied to Claim 12.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laffont et al. (US 2020/0051320 A1) applied to Claim 6 above, and further in view of Kasaharat (JP 2021110904 A).
Regarding Claim 7, Laffont discloses processing the virtual image by taking into account the visual content shown on display ([0181]: The methods and systems advantageously combine the dioptric adjustment of optical systems with the modification of images shown on displays, and may take into account the position and gaze direction of users, as well as the visual content shown on the display). But Laffont fails to explicitly disclose wherein the display content includes at least one of a character or a pattern.
However Kasaharat teaches or suggests wherein the display content includes at least one of a character or a pattern ([0022]: the display control unit may display a virtual image of a display object for which it is important to accurately convey information to the driver in an area of the virtual image display surface with a low degree of blurring, and may display a virtual image of a display object for which it is important to provide the driver with a natural visual sensation in an area of the virtual image display surface with a high degree of blurring. [0027]: the display control unit may perform display control to reduce the degree of blurring when the virtual image displayed in the area of the virtual image display surface with a high degree of blurring is a virtual image that is determined to have a higher level of urgency or importance than usual. [0029]: For example, this may be the case when a warning mark is displayed in the distance to warn of a traffic accident that has occurred ahead of the vehicle, or when a danger warning is displayed to warn of an intruding vehicle remaining in a dangerous position, or when a display of such importance that it cannot be overlooked is displayed, such as a warning of an exit from a highway). Therefore it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of Kasaharat into that of Laffont and to include the limitation of wherein the display content includes at least one of a character or a pattern in order to provide a HUD device that can reduce eye fatigue of a driver as suggested by Kasaharat ([0006]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 YINGCHUN HE whose telephone number is (571)270-7218. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 MT.
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, Xiao M Wu can be reached at 571-272-7761. 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.
/YINGCHUN HE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2613