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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of Species N2 (figures 5 and 18) in the reply filed on 02/17/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that FIGS. 4 and 5 both illustrate adjustable fluid-filled lens element 72-2 comprising lens element 84, fluid-filled chamber 82, fluid 92, lens element 86, and lens housing 90. The restriction requirement between inventions Species 1 and 2, as set forth in the Office action mailed on 02/17/2026, has been reconsidered. The restriction requirement is hereby partially withdrawn.
In view of the above noted withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a continuation or divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once a restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
The requirement between Species A-Q is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 1-16 are 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. The specific limitation “a negative bias lens on the first side of the waveguide; and an adjustable positive bias lens on the second side of the waveguide” appears to be unclear. The examiner is not sure what bias is being referred to. It is unclear whether “bias” refers to the power, some structural nature of the material, or something else. For examining purposes, the examiner assumes “power” such that “a negative lens on the first side of the waveguide; and an adjustable positive lens on the second side of the waveguide.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1-7, 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan et al. (US 2021/0048674) in view of Ouderkirk et al. (US 10,962,791).
Regarding claim 1, Yan et al. (figures 1-4B) discloses an electronic device, comprising:
a head-mounted support structure (26-2; figure 2; see at least paragraph 0026); and
an optical module (100, 102; see at least paragraph 0027) coupled to the head-mounted support structure, wherein the optical module comprises:
a waveguide (86; figure 2) having first and second opposing sides;
a display that is configured to emit light into the waveguide (14; figure 2; see at least paragraph 0028);
a negative lens on the first side of the waveguide (120; see at least paragraph 0033); and
a positive lens on the second side of the waveguide (106; see at least paragraph 0033).
Yan et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Yan et al. is silent regarding an adjustable positive lens. Ouderkirk et al. (figure 10) teaches an adjustable positive lens (1005; the shape of the structural support element may be any of a variety of shapes, including, without limitation, substantially planar, biconvex, biconcave, plano-convex, plano-concave, positive meniscus, or negative meniscus; see at least column 11, lines 1-10 and column 16, lines 1-10). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lens as taught by Ouderkirk et al. in order to accommodate users with different vision and/or to accommodate left and right eyes with different vision.
Regarding claim 2, Yan et al. (figures 1-4B) discloses wherein the negative lens is a non-adjustable negative bias lens (120; see at least paragraph 0033).
Regarding claim 3, Yan et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Yan et al. is silent regarding an adjustable negative lens. Ouderkirk et al. (figure 9) teaches an adjustable negative lens (1010; the shape of the structural support element may be any of a variety of shapes, including, without limitation, substantially planar, biconvex, biconcave, plano-convex, plano-concave, positive meniscus, or negative meniscus; see at least column 11, lines 1-10 and column 16, lines 1-10). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lens as taught by Ouderkirk et al. in order to accommodate users with different vision and/or to accommodate left and right eyes with different vision.
Regarding claim 4, Yan et al. as modified by Ouderkirk et al. teaches wherein the adjustable positive bias lens and the adjustable negative bias lens are adjusted independently.
The limitation, “wherein the adjustable positive bias lens and the adjustable negative bias lens are adjusted independently” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Ouderkirk et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 5, Yan et al. as modified by Ouderkirk et al. teaches wherein the adjustable positive bias lens and the adjustable negative bias lens are adjusted synchronously.
The limitation, “wherein the adjustable positive bias lens and the adjustable negative bias lens are adjusted synchronously” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Ouderkirk et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 6, Ouderkirk et al. (figure 10) teaches wherein the adjustable negative lens comprises a tunable lens element with a fluid-filled chamber (FIG. 1A illustrates an example approach for filling an optical lens assembly with a deformable medium (e.g., an optical fluid). As shown in FIG. 1A; see at least column 5, lines 29-45).
Regarding claim 7, Ouderkirk et al. (figure 10) teaches wherein the adjustable negative lens further comprises a non-adjustable lens element with a surface having concave curvature (structural support 1050).
Regarding claim 10, Yan et al. (figures 1-4B) discloses wherein the optical module further comprises: an input coupler that couples the light from the display into the waveguide; and an output coupler that couples the light from the display out of the waveguide ( An optical system for device 10 may be formed from couplers 84 (sometimes referred to as input couplers), waveguides 86, and an optical system formed from one or more optical components such as components 100 and 102 and Waveguides 86 may be provided with respective left and right output couplers 88 such as holograms formed on or in the material of waveguides 86; see at least paragraphs 0027-0029).
Regarding claim 11, Ouderkirk et al. (figure 10) teaches wherein the negative lens comprises third and fourth opposing sides, wherein the third side is interposed between the waveguide and the fourth side, and wherein the fourth side has a surface with concave curvature (outer surface of lens 1050 and waveguide 1030).
Regarding claim 12, wherein the adjustable positive lens comprises a fluid-filled chamber (FIG. 1A illustrates an example approach for filling an optical lens assembly with a deformable medium (e.g., an optical fluid). As shown in FIG. 1A; see at least column 5, lines 29-45).
Regarding claim 13, Ouderkirk et al. (figure 10) teaches a gaze-tracking sensor, wherein the adjustable positive lens is configured to be adjusted based on a vergence detected by the gaze-tracking sensor (in the more integrated optical lens assembly 1000, the structural support element may include an ophthalmic corrective optic and/or an eye tracking element. The curvature of structural support element 1045, which may be furthest from eye 1035, may result in improved anti-reflective properties and therefore may have a high optical quality as an outer protective lens element; see at least column 17, lines 11-32).
The limitation, “wherein the adjustable positive lens is configured to be adjusted based on a vergence detected by the gaze-tracking sensor” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Ouderkirk et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 14, Ouderkirk et al. (figure 10) teaches a gaze-tracking sensor, wherein the adjustable positive lens is configured to be adjusted based on an eye position detected by the gaze-tracking sensor (in the more integrated optical lens assembly 1000, the structural support element may include an ophthalmic corrective optic and/or an eye tracking element. The curvature of structural support element 1045, which may be furthest from eye 1035, may result in improved anti-reflective properties and therefore may have a high optical quality as an outer protective lens element; see at least column 17, lines 11-32).
The limitation, “wherein the adjustable positive lens is configured to be adjusted based on an eye position detected by the gaze-tracking sensor” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Ouderkirk et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 15, Ouderkirk et al. (figure 10) teaches wherein the adjustable positive lens is configured to be adjusted based on a depth of content presented by the display (in the more integrated optical lens assembly 1000, the structural support element may include an ophthalmic corrective optic and/or an eye tracking element. The curvature of structural support element 1045, which may be furthest from eye 1035, may result in improved anti-reflective properties and therefore may have a high optical quality as an outer protective lens element; see at least column 17, lines 11-32).
The limitation, “wherein the adjustable positive lens is configured to be adjusted based on a depth of content presented by the display” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Ouderkirk et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 16, Ouderkirk et al. (figure 10) teaches a gaze-tracking sensor, wherein the adjustable positive bias lens is configured to be adjusted based on a gaze direction detected by the gaze-tracking sensor (in the more integrated optical lens assembly 1000, the structural support element may include an ophthalmic corrective optic and/or an eye tracking element. The curvature of structural support element 1045, which may be furthest from eye 1035, may result in improved anti-reflective properties and therefore may have a high optical quality as an outer protective lens element; see at least column 17, lines 11-32).
The limitation, “a gaze-tracking sensor, wherein the adjustable positive bias lens is configured to be adjusted based on a gaze direction detected by the gaze-tracking sensor” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Ouderkirk et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan et al. (US 2021/0048674) in view of Ouderkirk et al. (US 10,962,791); further in view of Dharmatilleke (US 2011/0038028).
Regarding claim 8, Yan et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Yan et al. is silent regarding wherein the optical module further comprises a cover layer that is in direct contact with the adjustable positive lens. Dharmatilleke (figure 3K) teaches wherein the optical module further comprises a cover layer that is in direct contact with the adjustable positive lens (Covers 436 may be provided to protect the flowable materials 204a, 204b from the environment; see at least paragraph 0064). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the cover as taught by Dharmatilleke et al. in order to protect the electronic device.
Regarding claim 9, Yan et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Yan et al. is silent regarding wherein the optical module further comprises a cover layer that is separated from the adjustable positive lens by an air gap. Dharmatilleke (figure 3K) teaches wherein the optical module further comprises a cover layer that is separated from the adjustable positive lens by an air gap (the air gap between covers 436 may be provided and the flowable materials 204a, 204b; see at least paragraph 0064). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the cover as taught by Dharmatilleke et al. in order to protect the electronic device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1428. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 8:00 AM -6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Carruth, can be reached at 571-272-9791. 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 applications 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 Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAUREN NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights