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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) filed on February 8, 2024; April 11, 2024 have/has been acknowledged and considered by the examiner. Initialed copies of supplied IDS(s) forms are included in this correspondence.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 13, 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3, Examiner suggests -- wherein the control signal --
Claim 13, Examiner suggests -- orientation of the switchable --
Claim 15, Examiner suggests -- based on the [[the]] subset of the --
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a) an eye tracking system to determine…in claim 8
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 22 is 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 22, the claim recites “the first set…is located between an exit pupil expander or an outcoupler of the waveguide” which unclear how something (first set) is between only one thing (either expander or outcoupler). This appears to be a typographical error of between the expander and outcoupler.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-11, 13, 16-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1)/(a2) as being anticipated by Landig et al. (US 2023/0367073 - Landig).
As to claim 1, Landig teaches an eyewear device (Landig Figs. 3B, 15, 16), comprising
a waveguide (Landig Fig. 3B - 301B) comprising a first set of adjustable reflectors (Landig Fig. 3B - 303; para. [0059]), wherein each adjustable reflector of the first set of adjustable reflectors is switchable between a first state in which the adjustable reflector is transparent and second state in which the adjustable reflector reflects a portion of light incident thereon (Landig Fig. 3B - 303, 360B, 321, 322B; para. [0059]);
and a controller (Landig Fig. 4 - 431) configured to send a control signal to a subset of the first set of adjustable reflectors to control the subset of the first set of adjustable reflectors to operate in the first state or the second state (Landig Fig. 3B - 303, 360B, 321, 322B; para. [0059], [0061]).
As to claim 2, Landig teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Landig further teaches the first set of adjustable reflectors is located in an exit pupil expander or an outcoupler of the waveguide (Landig Fig. 3B; Fig. 4 - 450).
As to claim 3, Landig teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Landig further teaches the control signal is based on a type of content generated for display by the eyewear display (Landig Fig. 3B - 321; para. [0059]; Fig. 7 - 704B, 704O).
As to claim 4, Landig teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Landig further teaches the adjustable waveguide comprises a second set of adjustable reflectors (Landig Fig. 3B - 303; Fig. 4 - 403; Fig. 8A - 803; Fig. 11 - 1103; Fig. 12 - 1203), wherein each adjustable reflector of the second set of adjustable reflectors is switchable between a first state in which the adjustable reflector is transparent and a second state in which the adjustable reflector reflects a portion of light incident thereon (Landig Fig. 3B - 303, 360B, 321, 322B; para. [0059]);
the controller is configured to send a second control signal to a subset of the second set of adjustable reflectors to control the subset of the second set of adjustable reflectors to operate in the first state or the second state (Landig Fig. 4 - 431; para. [0059], [0061]).
As to claim 5, Landig teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Landig further teaches the first set of adjustable reflectors is located in an exit pupil expander of the waveguide and the second set of adjustable reflectors is located in an outcoupler of the waveguide (Landig Fig. 3B - 303; Fig. 4 - 403, 450; Fig. 11 - 1103; Fig. 12 - 1203; Fig. 13 - 1303).
As to claim 6, Landig teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Landig further teaches the first set of adjustable reflectors is located between an exit pupil expander and an output coupler (Landig Fig. 11 - 1103; Fig. 12 - 1203; Fig. 13 - 1303-1, 1303-2; para. [0033]).
As to claim 7, Landig teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 6, and Landig further teaches the waveguide comprises a second set of adjustable reflectors arranged adjacent to the first set of adjustable reflectors between the exit pupil expander and the outcoupler (Landig Fig. 11 - 1103; Fig. 12 - 1203; Fig 13 - 1303-1, 1303-2; para. [0033]), wherein each adjustable reflector of the second set of adjustable reflectors is switchable between a first state in which the adjustable reflector is transparent and a second state in which the adjustable reflector reflects a portion of light incident thereon based on a second control signal (Landig Figs. 11, 12, 13; para. [0059], [0061], [0085], [0086], [0092]), and the controller configured to send the second control signal to a subset of the second set of adjustable reflectors to control the subset of the second set of adjustable reflectors to operate in the first or second state (Landig Fig. 4 - 431; Figs. 11, 12, 13; para. [0059], [0061], [0085], [0086], [0092]).
As to claim 8, Landig teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Landig further teaches an eye tracking system to determine at least one of a position or an orientation of an eye of a user of the eyewear display (Landig Fig. 4 - 432; para. [0063]), and the controller configured to send the control signal based on the at least one of the position or orientation of the eye (Landig Fig. 4 - 432, 431; para. [0063]; Fig. 7 - 704D, 704D1).
As to claim 9, Landig teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 8, and Landig further teaches the subset of adjustable reflectors is operated in the second state to reflect light toward a pupil position based on the at least one of the position or the orientation of the eye (Landig Fig. 4 - 432, 431; Figs. 5A, B - 521, 522, 505; Fig. 7 - 704D, 704D1).
As to claim 10, Landig teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Landig further teaches the controller is configured to generate the control signal based on an interpupillary distance of a user of the eyewear display (Landig para. [0044], [0070]).
As to claim 11, Landig teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Landig further teaches each adjustable reflector in the first set of adjustable reflector comprises a cholesteric liquid crystal layer (Landig Figs. 9A-C - 924; para. [0081], [0082]), wherein the control signal comprises a voltage that modifies an orientation of cholesteric liquid crystals in the cholesteric liquid crystal layer (Landig Figs. 9A-C - 924; para. [0081], [0082]), wherein the first state and the second state are dependent upon the orientation of CLCs in the CLC layer (Landig Figs. 9A-C - 924; para. [0081], [0082]).
As to claim 13, Landig teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Landig further teaches each adjustable reflector in the first set of adjustable reflectors comprises a switchable fractional waveplate (Landig Figs. 9A-C - 924; para. [0081], [0082]), wherein the control signal comprises a voltage that modifies an orientation of the switchable fractional waveplate (Landig Figs. 9A-C - 924; para. [0081], [0082]), wherein the first state and the second state are dependent upon the orientation of the switchable fractional waveplate (Landig Figs. 9A-C - 924; para. [0081], [0082]).
As to claim 16, Landig teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Landig further teaches the portion of light reflected by the adjustable reflectors in the second state is adjustable (Landig para. [0049]).
As to claim 17, Landig teaches a method for controlling display light in an eyewear display (Landig Fig. 3B; Fig. 4; Fig. 7), comprising
sending, from a controller (Landig Fig. 4 - 431; para. [0061]) of the eyewear, a control signal to a subset of a first set of adjustable reflectors in a waveguide of the eyewear display (Landig Fig. 4 - 431, 403; Fig. 3 - 303, 301B; para. [0059]), and
switching, for each adjustable reflector in the subset of the first set of adjustable reflectors, between a first state in which the adjustable reflector is transparent (Landig Fig. 3B - 322B; para. [0049], [0059]) and a second state in which the adjustable reflector reflects a portion of display light thereon (Landig Fig. 3B - 321; para. [0049], [0059]).
As to claim 18, Landig teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 17, and Landig further teaches determining, at an eye tracking system (Landig Fig. 4 - 432; para. [0063]) of the eyewear display, at least one of a position or an orientation of an eye of a user of the eyewear display (Landig Fig. 4 - 432; para. [0063]), and generating at the controller, the control signal based on the at least one of the position or orientation of the eye (Landig Fig. 4 - 432, 431; para. [0063]; Fig. 7 - 704D, 704D1).
As to claim 19, Landig teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 17, and Landig further teaches sending, from the controller, a second control signal to a subset of a second set of adjustable reflectors in a waveguide of the eyewear display (Landig Fig. 3B - 303; Fig. 4 - 403, 431; Fig. 8A - 803; Fig. 11 - 1103; Fig. 12 - 1203),
switching, for each adjustable reflector in the subset of the second set of adjustable reflectors, between a first state in which the adjustable reflector is transparent (Landig Fig. 3B - 322B; para. [0049], [0059]) and a second state in which the adjustable reflector reflects a portion of display light incident thereon (Landig Fig. 3B - 321; para. [0049], [0059]).
As to claim 20, Landig teaches a waveguide comprising
a first set of adjustable reflectors (Landig Fig. 3B - 303; para. [0059]), wherein each adjustable reflector of the first set of adjustable reflectors is switchable between a first state in which the adjustable reflector is transparent and second state in which the adjustable reflector reflects a portion of light incident thereon (Landig Fig. 3B - 303, 360B, 321, 322B; para. [0059]).
As to claim 21, Landig teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 20, and Landig further teaches the first set of adjustable reflectors is located in an exit pupil expander or an outcoupler of the waveguide (Landig Fig. 3B; Fig. 4 - 450).
As to claim 22, Landig teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 20, and Landig further teaches the first set of adjustable reflectors is located between an exit pupil expander and an output coupler (Landig Fig. 11 - 1103; Fig. 12 - 1203; Fig. 13 - 1303-1, 1303-2; para. [0033]).
As to claim 23, Landig teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 20, and Landig further teaches the adjustable waveguide comprises a second set of adjustable reflectors (Landig Fig. 3B - 303; Fig. 4 - 403; Fig. 8A - 803; Fig. 11 - 1103; Fig. 12 - 1203), wherein each adjustable reflector of the second set of adjustable reflectors is switchable between a first state in which the adjustable reflector is transparent and a second state in which the adjustable reflector reflects a portion of light incident thereon (Landig Fig. 3B - 303, 360B, 321, 322B; para. [0059]).
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.
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 12, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landig as applied to claim 11 and 13 above, and further in view of Peng et al. (US 2020/0049872 - Peng).
As to claims 12, 14, Landig teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claims 11, 13, but doesn’t specify the first set of adjustable reflectors comprises a passive cholesteric liquid crystal layer configured to reflect light having a first polarization state and transmit light having a second polarization state different than the first polarization state.
In the same field of endeavor Peng teaches switchable reflectors for eyewear displays (Peng Fig. 3; Figs. 17A, 17B) a passive cholesteric liquid crystal layer configured to reflect light having a first polarization state and transmit light having a second polarization state different than the first polarization state (Peng Figs. 17A-B - 1714; para. [0130]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide a passive CLC layer since such layers are well known in the art as components of switchable polarization sensitive reflectors reflecting and/or transmitting the desired polarization (Peng Figs. 17A-B - 1714; para. [0130]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landig as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hayashi et al (US 20017/0184894 - Hayashi).
As to claim 15, Landig teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, but doesn’t specify a dimming module layer positioned at a world side of the waveguide, wherein the dimming module layer comprises regions whose transparency is adjusted based on the subset of the first set of adjustable reflectors operating in the first state or the second state.
In the same field of endeavor Hayashi teaches eyewear devices with a dimming module layer positioned at a world side of the waveguide (Hayashi Fig. 14 - 50, 51, 52), wherein the dimming module layer comprises regions (Hayashi Fig. 14 - 51, 52) whose transparency is adjusted based on the subset of the first set of adjustable reflectors operating in the first state or the second state (Hayashi Fig. 14 - 51, 52; Fig. 15A - 51, 52, Fig. 15B - 51, 52; para. [0114]-[0118]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide such dimmer since, as taught by Hayashi, such dimmer allows for controlling the transmittances of the world based on the field of view (FOV) and improving contrast of the images (Hayashi Fig. 14 - 51, 52; Fig. 15A - 51, 52, Fig. 15B - 51, 52; para. [0114]-[0118]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Lam et al. (US 12,282,182; 2024/0192427); Landig et al. (US 12,429,651); Peng et al. (US 10,495,798); Kress et al. (US 2014/02332651) are cited as additional examples of eyewear/waveguide with controllable reflectors and/or dimmers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY W WILKES whose telephone number is (571)270-7540. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 (Pacific).
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.
/ZACHARY W WILKES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 January 8, 2026