DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This office action is in response to a reply filed 1/6/2026.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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 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 (IDS) submitted on 1/4/2024 and 5/17/2024 comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the examiner considered the information disclosure statement.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election of Group 1 (claims 1-10) without traverse in the reply filed on 1/6/2026 is acknowledged, Claims 11-20 are withdrawn as being drawn to a non-elected. Applicant canceled Groups 2 and 3 on 1/6/2026. Upon consideration of the claims and the elected Group, the amended new claim 23 is drawn to Group 2 since it recites the feature of “a first optical power” and “a second optical power”, which is drawn to Group 2, new claim 29 is drawn to Group 2 since it recites the feature of “a first optical power” and “a second optical power”; as outlined in the restriction office action mailed 11/6/2025.
Claim 23 and 29 are therefore withdrawn as being drawn to non-elected Group 2.
Claims 24-25 are withdrawn as containing the deficiencies of claim 23 through their dependency from claim 23.
Group 1 and claims 1-10, 21-22, 26-28 and 30 are examined herein.
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.
Claim 10 is 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
Regarding claim 10, the limitations/terms of “an entirety of the second region lies outside the FOV” (lines 1-2) which is not described/defined in the specification disclosure. The claimed limitations/terms do not have corresponding parts specified in the specification disclosure. An applicant shows possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations using such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention. Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In this case, the specification in paragraph [0055], shows the Near-field region 70---the second region-- may at least partially overlap FOV, or if desired, be non-overlapping with respect to FOV, is supplied.
Therefore claim 10 lacks support by the written description.
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.
Claim 10 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.
Regarding claim 10, see above 112(a) rejection. As the limitations/terms of “an entirety of the second region lies outside the FOV” (lines 1-2) is vague and renders the claims indefinite; which is not described/defined in the specification disclosure; the specification in paragraph [0055], shows the Near-field region 70---the second region-- may at least partially overlap FOV, or be non-overlapping with respect to FOV. It’s not clear: how to do an entirety of the second region lies outside the FOV. Thus, It is suggested to amend the claim and provide explanations in order to remove the indefiniteness issues.
Therefore proper amendments are required in order to clarify the scopes of the claims and overcome the rejections.
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 1-10, 21-22, 26, 28 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Browy et al. (US20200150424).
Regarding claim 1, Browy teaches an electronic device (Browy, figs.1-12, abstract, head-mounted display device) comprising:
a waveguide (figs.1-12, waveguide 250) configured to propagate first light (figs.12A- B, light emitted 1004);
an optical coupler configured to couple the first light out of the waveguide (paragraph [0030], The at least one out-coupling optical element is configured to receive light guided within the waveguide by total internal reflection from the front face and the rear face and to out-couple light out of the front face of the waveguide.) within a field of view (FOV) (see fig.12A, the field of view in the 1018, 1020) and configured to transmit second light (fig.12A, light 1010) from an external object (fig.12A, the world 1012); and
a lens (fig.12B, lens 1006) overlapping the optical coupler (see Browy, fig.12B, the lens 1006 overlapping the optical coupler) and having a surface (see annotated image, Browy, fig.12B, the surface) configured to transmit at least the second light (fig.12B, the light 1010), the surface comprising:
a first region (see annotated image, Browy, fig.12C, the first region) with a first radius of curvature (see annotated image, Browy, fig.12C, since the first region has Greater Focal Distance, so have the first radius of curvature),
a second region with a second radius of curvature that is different from the first radius of curvature (see annotated image, fig.12C, the second region with the second radius of curvature, since is difference focal distances, thus, that is different from the first radius of curvature),
a corridor region that laterally extends from the first region to the second region and that has a constant astigmatism (see annotated image, Browy, fig.12C, corridor region that laterally extends from the first region to the second region and that has a constant astigmatism since have 3 different focal distance), and
blending regions around the corridor region, wherein the blending regions are non-overlapping with respect to the FOV (see annotated image, Browy, fig.12C, paragraphs [0210]-[212] the blending regions is out of 3 different focal distance; thus, the regions are non-overlapping with respect to the FOV).
PNG
media_image1.png
664
950
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
740
1184
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Browy discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and further teaches wherein the corridor region has a gradient optical power (see annotated image, Browy fig.12C, paragraphs [0210]-[212], a progressive negative lens (1006) may configured to have an effective focal distance that varies based upon the gaze vector of the eye through such lens).
Regarding claim 3, Browy discloses the invention as described in Claim 2 and further teaches wherein the blending regions have non-constant astigmatism (see annotated image, Browy, fig.12C, paragraphs [0210]-[212] the blending regions is out of 3 different focal distance; thus, the regions have non-constant astigmatism).
Regarding claim 4, Browy discloses the invention as described in Claim 3 and further teaches wherein each of the blending regions has a respective plurality of isometric lines of constant astigmatism that lie outside of the FOV (--this portion is of function claim. In product and apparatus claims –when the structure and composition recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent, see MPEP § 2112.01. As the structure and materials provided by Browy is same to that recited in the claims, then it is expect “each of the blending regions has a respective plurality of isometric lines of constant astigmatism that lie outside of the FOV” function provided by Browy has same results as claimed. Since where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)).
Regarding claim 5, Browy discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and further teaches wherein further comprising:
an additional lens (fig.12B, lens 1008) overlapping the optical coupler and configured to transmit the first light (1004) and the second light (1010) within the FOV (between the 1018 and 1020), the waveguide (250) being interposed between the lens (1006) and the additional lens (1008).
Regarding claim 6, Browy discloses the invention as described in Claim 5 and further teaches wherein the surface of the lens faces (see annotated image, Browy, fig.12C, the surface) away from the waveguide (fig.12B, the 250).
Regarding claim 7, Browy discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and further teaches wherein further comprising:
an additional lens (fig.12B, lens 1008) overlapping the optical coupler (described in claim 1, the waveguide have optical coupler) and configured to transmit the second light (the 1004) to the optical coupler, wherein the surface of the lens (see annotated image, fig.12B, the surface) is configured to transmit the first light (1004) and the second light (1010) within the FOV (between 1018 and 1020).
Regarding claim 8, Browy discloses the invention as described in Claim 7 and further teaches wherein the surface faces (see annotated image, fig.12B, the surface) away from the waveguide (250).
Regarding claim 9, Browy discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and further teaches wherein the first region of the surface overlaps a first set of elevation angles of the FOV at a first side of an optical axis of the lens (see Browy, paragraph [0212], and see annotated image, Browy, fig.12C, having the first region of the surface overlaps a first set of elevation angles of the FOV at a first side of an optical axis z of the lens 1006), the second region of the surface overlaps a second set of elevation angles of the FOV that are at a second side of the optical axis of the lens (see annotated image, Browy, fig.12C, paragraph [0212], having the second region of the surface overlaps a second set of elevation angles of the FOV that are at a second side of the optical axis z of the lens 1006), and the first radius of curvature is greater than the second radius of curvature (see annotated image, fig.12C, the radius of curvatures are well known in the art : a greater focal distance means a larger radius of curvature, while a shorter focal length means a smaller radius of curvature, because the focal length is generally half the radius).
Regarding claim 10, Browy discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and further teaches wherein an entirety of the second region lies outside the FOV (see annotated image, Browy, figs.12B-C, paragraph [0212], having the entirety of the second region lies outside the FOV since can to predictably change focal distance with gaze vector realignment to the right, or to the top, or to the upper-left, upper-right, lower-left, lower-right, and so on).
Regarding claim 21, Browy discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and further teaches wherein the first region is configured to transmit the second light within a first portion of the FOV and the second region is configured to transmit the second light within a second portion of the FOV at lower elevation angles than the first portion of the FOV (see annotated image, fig.12B and fig.12C, the first region is configured to transmit the second light 1010 within a first portion of the FOV and the second region is configured to transmit the second light within a second portion of the FOV at lower elevation angles than the first portion of the FOV).
Regarding claim 22, Browy discloses the invention as described in Claim 21 and further teaches wherein the corridor region has a gradient optical power ((see annotated image, Browy fig.12C, paragraphs [0210]-[212], a progressive negative lens (1006) may configured to have an effective focal distance that varies based upon the gaze vector of the eye through such lens).
Regarding claim 26, Browy discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and further teaches wherein the optical coupler comprises a surface relief grating (paragraph [0163], the optical coupler comprises a surface relief grating).
Regarding claim 28, Browy discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and further teaches wherein optical coupler comprises volume holograms (paragraph [0163], the optical coupler comprises volume holograms).
Regarding claim 30, Browy teaches an optical system Browy, figs.1-12, abstract, head-mounted display device) comprising:
a waveguide (figs.1-12, waveguide 250) configured to propagate first light (figs.12A- B, light emitted 1004);
an optical coupler configured to couple the first light out of the waveguide (paragraph [0030], The at least one out-coupling optical element is configured to receive light guided within the waveguide by total internal reflection from the front face and the rear face and to out-couple light out of the front face of the waveguide.) within a field of view (FOV) (fig.12A, 1018, 1020) and configured to transmit second light (fig.12A, light 1010) from an external object (fig.12A, the world 1012); and
a lens (fig.12B, lens 1006) overlapping the optical coupler (see Browy, fig.12B, the lens 1006 overlapping the optical coupler) and having a surface (see annotated image, Browy, fig.12B, the surface) configured to transmit at least the second light (fig.12B, the light 1010), the surface comprising:
a first region (see annotated image, Browy, fig.12C, the first region) with a first radius of curvature (see annotated image, Browy, fig.12C, since the first region has Greater Focal Distance, so have the first radius of curvature) and configured to transmit the second light (the 1010) within a first portion of the FOV (the portion of the FOV, 1020 and 1018),
a second region with a second radius of curvature that is different from the first radius of curvature (see annotated image, fig.12C, the second region with the second radius of curvature, since is difference focal distances, thus, that is different from the first radius of curvature), and configured to transmit the second light (the 1010) within a second portion of the FOV (one portion of the FOV, 1020 and 1018) at lower elevation angles than the first portion of the FOV (see annotated image, fig.12B and fig.12C, at lower elevation angles than the first portion of the FOV),
a corridor region that extends from the first region to the second region and that has a constant astigmatism (see annotated image, corridor region that laterally extends from the first region to the second region and that has a constant astigmatism since have 3 different focal distance),
and
blending regions around the corridor region (see annotated image, Browy, fig.12C, paragraphs [0210]-[212] the blending regions is around the corridor region),
wherein the blending regions have variable astigmatism and are non-overlapping with respect to the FOV (see annotated image, Browy, fig.12C, paragraphs [0210]-[212] as the function language ---variable astigmatism, the blending regions is out of 3 different focal distance; thus, the regions have variable astigmatism and are non-overlapping with respect to the FOV).
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.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Browy et al. (US20200150424), and further in view of Ayres et al. (US20170285348).
Regarding claim 27, Browy discloses the invention as described in Claim 1, Browy does not explicitly teaches wherein the optical coupler comprises a louvered mirror.
However, Ayre teaches the analogous waveguide (Ayre, figs.1-5, abstract, an optical reflective device for homogenizing light including a waveguide), and further teaches wherein the optical coupler comprises a louvered mirror (paragraphs [0099]-[0111], optical coupler include louvered mirrors).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Browy to have the optical coupler comprises a louvered mirror as taught by Ayre for the purpose to. improve device for homogenizing light to change the power distribution of light in a waveguide or TIR device (Ayre, paragraph [0005]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUEI-JEN LEE EDENFIELD whose telephone number is (571)272-3005. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. -Thurs 8:00 am - 5:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Pham can be reached on 571-272-3689. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273- 8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published application may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Services Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199(In USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/KUEI-JEN L EDENFIELD/
Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/THOMAS K PHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872