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 / Arguments
Applicant’s amendment and response has been considered. The examiner is not respectfully persuaded that the amendments overcome the prior art of record. The amendments to the claims take out “fixed” as an adjective to “focus distance” and “viewing zone” (added in the 12/31/2025 amendment; now removed). The amendments to the independent claims are mostly stylistic, meaning the claim terms are moved around but still essentially claim the same subject matter, just moved around:
Previously, a “first portion” and “second portion” at a first/second “fixed focus distance”, respectively, was at the end of claim 1.
Each first/second portion corresponds to a first/second viewing zone, respectively.
Now: the first/second viewing zone, associated with first/second focus distance (“fixed” was removed, as noted above), has been moved to the beginning of claim 1.
And the first/second portion is still toward the end of claim 1, but moved a little up further.
The added subject matter to the independent claim, wherein a virtual object presented for the first focus distance appears in focus in the first portion and appears out of focus in the second portion, is definitional. Meaning, a virtual object that is presented (i.e. rendered/displayed/in focus) for the first focus distance in the first portion [Wingdings font/0xE0] that same virtual object will be out of focus at different focus distances (i.e. at the second portion).
Accordingly, the rejections under 103 are maintained. Please see remainder of this official action for details.
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(s) 1-3, 6, 9-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2013/0300634 A1)
Regarding claim 1:
White teaches: a head-wearable (para. 26, head-wearable display such as glasses), extended reality (XR) device (para. 25, augmented reality applications) that includes an optical assembly, the optical assembly comprising: a display to display virtual content to a user of the XR device (Fig. 1A: 101 display, displaying virtual content Fig. 1A: 107a, 107b, to a user. See also para. 25: “see-through displays and other electronic displays may be used to present a mixture of virtual information and physical real-world information. In other words, a see-through display enables a presentation of virtual data (e.g., visual representations of the data) while enabling the user to view information, objects, scenes, etc. through the display. For example, augmented reality applications may provide graphical overlays over live scenes to present representations of information to enhance or supplement the scene viewable through the display.”), the display divided into a plurality of viewing zones comprising at least a first viewing zone associated with a first focus distance and
a second viewing zone associated with a second focus distance (para. 35 and Fig. 1D: 129a, 129b and 129c, these are 3 different “viewing zones” associated with different “focus distances” close, middle and infinite); and
an optical element (para. 35, display 125. White uses the term “display” to describe an optical element, not as a plain language meaning of display) to direct the virtual content from the display along an optical path towards an eye of the user (para. 35, White’s display 125 or “optical element” includes at last three lightguides to direct virtual content/light along optical path toward user eye),
the optical element dividing a field of view of the user into a plurality of portions corresponding to the plurality of viewing zones based on a predetermined mapping (Fig. 1D and para. 36, the user FOV is divided into portions corresponding to the viewing zones (close, middle, infinity) as mapped above), the plurality of portions comprising at least a first portion corresponding to the first viewing zone and a second portion corresponding to the second viewing zone (para. 35 and Fig. 1D. There are three portions illustrated) (also, for claim interpretation purposes, “viewing zone” and “portion” are being treated as substantially similar or referring to the same thing. This is because, as claimed, “viewing zone(-s)” are associated with focus distances. And a user FOV is divided into “portion(-s)” corresponding to the “viewing zone(-s)”. “Viewing zone” is what is associated with the display, “portion” is the term that is used to describe “viewing zone” when associated with a user field of view, both are fundamentally the same and corresponding to each other, as claimed. Applicant’s specification as filed also does not clearly distinguish between the two terms.
wherein a virtual object presented for the first focus distance appears in focus in the first portion and appears out of focus in the second portion (see mapping above, para. 35, Fig. 1D. This claim feature is definitional. A virtual object that is presented (i.e. rendered/displayed/in focus) for the first focus distance in the first portion [Wingdings font/0xE0] that same virtual object will be out of focus at different focus distances (i.e. at the second portion).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained the above, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
The prior art included each element recited in claim 1, although not necessarily in a single embodiment, with the only difference being between the claimed element and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of certain elements in a single prior art embodiment, as described above.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2:
White teaches: the XR device of claim 1, wherein the optical element comprises a lens (para. 31-32, lens as part of the optical system) (another example teaching: the dual lens system of Fig. 7B, configured with dynamic focus optical components 121 as lenses).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained the above, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A). One of ordinary skill would have been further motivated to make use of known optical architecture configurations to achieve desired display results.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 3:
White teaches: the XR device of claim 2, wherein the lens is arranged in a fixed position relative to the display (Fig. 5, lens corresponding to different displays for each eye).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims, to have further modified the applied reference(-s) in view of same to have obtained the above, motivated to make use of known display technology to achieve desired results.
Regarding claim 6:
White teaches: the XR device of claim 2, wherein the lens is a trifocal focusing lens, and
the plurality of portions further comprises a third portion providing a third focus distance that corresponds to a third viewing zone of the display, the third focus distance differing from both the first focus distance and the second focus distance (Fig. 5: 505a, b, 503 a, b, 511a, b – this illustrates/teaches a trifocal lens with three focus distances, respectively).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims, to have further modified the applied reference(-s) in view of same to have obtained the above, motivated to make use of known display technology to achieve desired results.
Regarding claim 9:
White teaches: the XR device of claim 1, wherein the virtual content comprises first virtual content and second virtual content (e.g. para. 25, 65, multiple virtual objects can be presented),
wherein the display is to simultaneously display the first virtual content in the first viewing zone and the second virtual content in the second viewing zone (e.g. para. 25, 65, 83, multiple virtual objects can be presented, in combination with mapping to claim 1, multiple viewing zones), and
the optical assembly is to direct, via the optical element, the first virtual content to be displayed at the first focus distance and the second virtual content to be displayed at the second focus distance (see mapping to claim 1, multiple focus distances).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims, to have further modified the applied reference(-s) in view of same to have obtained the above, motivated to make use of known display technology to achieve desired results.
Regarding claim 10:
White teaches: the XR device of claim 1, wherein the XR device further comprises at least one processor( para. 65, processor) to:
determine a presentation distance associated with the virtual object (see claim 7, “representational distance” corresponds to Applicant’s claimed “presentation distance” for a virtual object);
assign, based on the presentation distance, the first focus distance to the virtual object; and
in response to the assignment of the first focus distance to the virtual object, cause the virtual object to be rendered in the first viewing zone of the display (claim 7, which teaches that, determining a representation of data based on the focus distance is further based on a representational distance. This teaches/suggests the above “assign” function, as both representational distance is used to determine a representation based on focus distance. See also Fig. 1D and mapping to claim 1 re: viewing zones. Rendering in the first viewing zone is one embodiment of the teachings of White).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained the above, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 11:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the XR device of claim 1, wherein the virtual content comprises first virtual content from the first viewing zone and second virtual content from the second fixed viewing zone,
wherein the optical element is configured such that the first portion operatively directs the first virtual content such that the first virtual content is perceived at a first image plane at the first focus distance, and the second portion operatively directs the second virtual content such that the second virtual content is perceived at a second image plane at the second focus distance,
the first image plane being located in front of the second image plane from a viewing perspective of the user, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
The above features of claim 11 are taught by Fig. 1D, which shows three viewing zones at different focus distances, respectively, as well as different focal planes (image planes), respectively. See Fig. 1D: 129a, 129, 129c (focal planes associated with different focus distances) and related description)
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 12:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the XR device of claim 11, wherein the first virtual content comprises a first virtual object and the second virtual content comprises a second virtual object (e.g. para. 25, 65, multiple virtual objects can be presented), and the XR device further comprises at least one processor (para. 65, processor) to:
identify, based on characteristics of the first virtual object and the second virtual object, that the first virtual object is to be presented at the first image plane and the second virtual content is to be presented at the second image plane (e.g. para. 65, processor can determine focus distances of objects, in combination with Fig. 1D, focus distance is related to focal plane (image plane). See also paras. 30, 32); and
in response to identifying that the first virtual object is to be presented at the first image plane and the second virtual content is to be presented at the second image plane, cause the first virtual object to be rendered in the first viewing zone and the second virtual object to be rendered in the second viewing zone (para. 65), and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
The prior art included each element recited in claim 12, although not necessarily in a single embodiment, with the only difference being between the claimed element and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of certain elements in a single prior art embodiment, as described above.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 13:
White teaches: the XR device of claim 11, wherein, from the viewing perspective of the user, the first viewing zone is located in a lower section of the field of view and the second viewing zone is located in an upper section of the field of view (see Fig. 1D, 129a-c, one is in a lower and another in an upper section, lower and upper referring to nearer or further focus distances).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims, to have further modified the applied reference(-s) in view of same to have obtained the above, motivated to make use of known display and optics technology to achieve desired results.
Regarding claim 14:
White teaches: the XR device of claim 1, wherein the first virtual content is dynamically adjusted from being perceived at the first image plane to being perceived at the second image plane by moving the first virtual content from the first viewing zone to the second viewing zone (see above mapping to claim 1, and White, Fig. 1D and para. 35. Moving content from a first to a second (i.e. close to middle viewing zone) will adjust the perception of the respective image planes).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims, to have further modified the applied reference(-s) in view of same to have obtained the above, motivated to make use of known display and optics technology to achieve desired results.
Regarding claim 16:
White teaches: the XR device of claim 1, wherein the optical assembly forms part of an optical see-through (OST) display arrangement (paras. 25-26, see-through displays).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims, to have further modified the applied reference(-s) in view of same to have obtained the above, motivated to make use of known display technology to achieve desired results.
Regarding claim 18:
White teaches: the XR device of claim 1, wherein the optical assembly is a first optical assembly and the eye of the user is a first eye of the user, and the XR device further includes a second optical assembly for a second eye of the user (see e.g. Fig 5, two optical assemblies for each eye).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims, to have further modified the applied reference(-s) in view of same to have obtained the above, motivated to make use of known display technology to achieve desired results.
Regarding claim 19: see claim 1.
The optical assembly of claim 19 corresponds to that of claim 1; the same rationale for rejection applies.
Regarding claim 20: see claim 1.
The method of claim 20 corresponds to the functions performed by the device of claim 1; the same rationale for rejection applies.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White in view of Schowengerdt (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2015/0205126 A1).
Regarding claim 4:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the XR device of claim 2, wherein the lens is a fixed-focus focusing lens (Schowengerdt, para. 114, an embodiment with fixed focus weak lens is known), and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
The prior art included each element recited in claim 1, although not necessarily in a single embodiment, with the only difference being between the claimed element and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of certain elements in a single prior art embodiment, as described and mapped above.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 5, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White in view of Danziger (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2019/0377122).
Regarding claim 5:
The applied reference(-s) to claim 2 do not proactively teach claim 5. Consider the following.
In analogous art, Danziger teaches: the XR device of claim 2, wherein the lens is a bifocal focusing lens (para. 78: quoting in part: “common for all the embodiments of the invention, the projecting optical device 240 may include one or more lenses, e.g. a bifocal lens, trifocal lens, continuously changing focal distance lens (progressive lens), and/or any other optical device or assembly having varying focal parameters within its field of view.”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims, to have further modified the applied reference(-s) in view of same to have obtained the above, motivated to make use of known display technology to achieve desired imaging results.
Regarding claim 7:
Danziger teaches: the XR device of claim 2, wherein the lens is a progressive focusing lens (para. 78, 82, 92 and 116, waveguides with progressive lenses), and
each of the plurality of portions provides a different focus distance that corresponds to a respective fixed viewing zone of the display, thereby defining multiple fixed focus distances distributed across the field of view (Id;).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims, to have further modified the applied reference(-s) in view of same to have obtained the above, motivated to make use of known display technology to achieve desired imaging results.
Regarding claim 8:
Danziger teaches: the XR device of claim 7, wherein the multiple fixed focus distances are distributed according to a gradient (para. 18, 24, continuously varying focus).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims, to have further modified the applied reference(-s) in view of same to have obtained the above, motivated to make use of known display technology to achieve desired imaging results.
Claim(s) 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White in view of Chaum (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2010/0149073 A1).
Regarding claim 15:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the XR device of claim 1, wherein the first fixed focus distance is a first distance selected for hand-based interactions with the XR device (Chaum, para. 1309, system can take input in various forms, such as hand gestures), and the second fixed focus distance is a second distance that is greater than the first distance (White, Fig. 1D, second focus distance greater than first, see 129c > 129b > 129a), and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
Re: first distance being selected for hand-based interactions, as Chaum teaches hand-based interactions, and White teaches different focus distances, White also teaches that it is known to have a system able to track user movement and determine the focus distance based on same. The examples White uses is for gaze tracking (see para.72), and also for tracking an input device or pointing device, which can allow the system to know what point in the FOV that is of interest to the user, and adjust the focus distance accordingly (see para.74-75). Modifying the applied references, such that the input device or pointing device, used to determine a user’s interest and dynamically change the resulting focus distance, is user’s hand, per Chaum, is all of taught and suggested by the prior art, and would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
The prior art included each element recited in claim 15, although not necessarily in a single embodiment, with the only difference being between the claimed element and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of certain elements in a single prior art embodiment, as described and mapped above.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 17:
Chaum teaches: the XR device of claim 16, wherein the display is offset from a gaze path of the XR device, and the OST display arrangement further comprises an optical combiner to direct light originating from the display from the optical path into the gaze path to enable the user to view the virtual content (see para. 585, “the variable focus element performs the collimation adjustment in response to a change in a gaze direction of the eye. In some cases, the variable focus element performs the collimation adjustment in response to an apparent depth of a particular object in the frame of the image data. In some cases, the variable focus element performs the collimation adjustment in response to a comparison of a gaze direction of the eye with a gaze direction of a second eye (sometimes referred to as “vergence”)” See also paras. 264, 266, 606. The collimation adjustment corresponding to gaze direction teaches Applicant’s claimed optical combiner configured to direct light into the gaze path to enable user to view virtual content, as mapped above in White).
Modifying the applied references, such to include the variable focus element of Chaum as an optical combiner to direct light from the display into the gaze path, as per Chaum, to the system of White, which also tracks user gaze (see White, para. 63), is all of taught and suggested by the prior art, and would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
The prior art included each element recited in claim 17, although not necessarily in a single embodiment, with the only difference being between the claimed element and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of certain elements in a single prior art embodiment, as described and mapped above.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sarah Lhymn whose telephone number is (571)270-0632. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM EST.
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 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.
Sarah Lhymn
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2613
/Sarah Lhymn/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2613
Prosecution Insights