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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of receipt of Information Disclosure Statement (PTO-1449) filed 03/16/2026. An initialed copy is attached to this Office Action.
Examiner’s Comments
The amendment to the specification is acknowledged.
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 (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.
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.
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 1, 2, 5-7, 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi et al. (USPG Pub No. 2017/0061838), hereinafter “Shi”, in view of Bailey et al. (USPG Pub No. 2016/0274365), hereinafter “Bailey”.
Regarding claim 1, Shi discloses a wearable display device (100) (see Fig. 1), comprising: a projector (235) (see Fig. 2, Paragraph 49, Line 4); an eyepiece (200) (see Fig. 2, Paragraph 49, Lines 3-4) comprising: one or more optical steering components (448) (see Fig. 4I, Paragraph 118, Lines 1-4); and a waveguide (442) configured to receive and direct light from the projector (235/440) through the one or more optical steering components (448) and towards a user of the wearable display device (see Figs. 2, 4I, Paragraph 119, Lines 1-4); an eye-gaze tracker (430/434) configured to detect movement of one or both eyes of the user (see Figs. 4G, 4I, Paragraph 131, Lines 1-4); and control circuitry (216) communicatively coupled to the one or more optical steering components (via 218) and the eye-gaze tracker (via 217), the control circuitry being configured to adjust an optical steering pattern of the one or more optical steering components to shift to a location corresponding to the detected movement of one or both eyes of the user (see Fig. 2, Paragraphs 53, 63, 64). Shi discloses the claimed invention, but does not specify generate a scan pattern comprising a central region and a peripheral region, wherein the central region has a higher resolution than the peripheral region; and to shift the central region. In the same field of endeavor, Bailey discloses generate a scan pattern comprising a central region and a peripheral region, wherein the central region (“region of interest”) has a higher resolution than the peripheral region (“outside of the region of interest”) (Paragraph 64); and to shift the central region (Paragraph 65). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Shi with generate a scan pattern comprising a central region and a peripheral region, wherein the central region has a higher resolution than the peripheral region; and to shift the central region of Bailey for the purpose of saving on graphical processing and power consumption (Paragraph 65).
Regarding claim 6, Shi discloses a method of operating a wearable display device (100) (see Fig. 1), the method comprising: receiving and directing, by a waveguide (442) of an eyepiece of the wearable display device, light from a projector (235/440) through the one or more optical steering components (448) and towards a user of the wearable display device (see Figs. 2, 4I, Paragraph 119, Lines 1-4); detecting, by an eye-gaze tracker (430/434) of the wearable display device, movement of one or both eyes of the user (see Figs. 4G, 4I, Paragraph 131, Lines 1-4); and adjusting, by control circuitry (216) communicatively coupled to the one or more optical steering components (via 218) and the eye-gaze tracker (via 217), an optical steering pattern of one or more optical steering components of the eyepiece to shift to a location corresponding to the detected movement of one or both eyes of the user (see Fig. 2, Paragraphs 53, 63, 64). Shi discloses the claimed invention, but does not specify generating, by control circuitry, a scan pattern comprising a central region and a peripheral region, wherein the central region has a higher resolution than the peripheral region; and to shift the central region. In the same field of endeavor, Bailey discloses generating, by control circuitry, a scan pattern comprising a central region and a peripheral region, wherein the central region (“region of interest”) has a higher resolution than the peripheral region (“outside of the region of interest”) (Paragraph 64); and to shift the central region (Paragraph 65). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the method of Shi with generating, by control circuitry, a scan pattern comprising a central region and a peripheral region, wherein the central region has a higher resolution than the peripheral region; and to shift the central region of Bailey for the purpose of saving on graphical processing and power consumption (Paragraph 65).
Regarding claims 2 and 7, Shi further discloses wherein the one or more optical steering components (448) comprises an array of tunable prisms (Paragraph 163).
Regarding claims 5 and 10, Shi further discloses wherein the wearable display device is an augmented reality (AR) device (Paragraph 51).
Regarding claim 13, Shi further discloses wherein the one or more optical steering components comprise a liquid crystal lens configured to change a phase profile thereof in accordance with a voltage applied to the liquid crystal lens (Paragraphs 118, 122, 123, 182).
Claims 3, 4, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi (USPG Pub No. 2017/0061838) in view of Bailey (USPG Pub No. 2016/0274365) as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Bradski et al. (USPG Pub No. 2016/0026253), hereinafter “Bradski”.
Regarding claim 3, Shi and Bailey disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify further comprising: a first lens; and a second lens, the first and second lenses being arranged on opposing sides of the waveguide. In the same field of endeavor, Bradski discloses further comprising: a first lens (166) (see Fig. 7A, Paragraphs 240, 241); and a second lens (167), the first and second lenses being arranged on opposing sides of the waveguide (164) (see Fig. 7A, Paragraphs 240, 241). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Shi and Bailey with further comprising: a first lens; and a second lens, the first and second lenses being arranged on opposing sides of the waveguide of Bradski for the purpose of providing the desired optical effect in order to produce augmented reality (Paragraph 241).
Regarding claim 8, Shi and Bailey disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify wherein the wearable display device further comprises a first lens and a second lens, the first and second lenses being arranged on opposing sides of the waveguide. In the same field of endeavor, Bradski discloses wherein the wearable display device further comprises a first lens (166) and a second lens (167) (see Fig. 7A, Paragraphs 240, 241), the first and second lenses being arranged on opposing sides of the waveguide (164) (see Fig. 7A, Paragraphs 240, 241). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Shi and Bailey with wherein the wearable display device further comprises a first lens and a second lens, the first and second lenses being arranged on opposing sides of the waveguide of Bradski for the purpose of providing the desired optical effect in order to produce augmented reality (Paragraph 241).
Regarding claims 4 and 9, Shi, Bailey and Bradski teach the wearable display device and method of claims 3 and 8, Bradski further discloses wherein the first lens (166) is configured to change its phase profile to adjust an apparent distance between the user of the wearable display device and virtual content displayed by the wearable display device (Paragraphs 240-245). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the wearable display device and method of Shi and Bailey with the teachings of Bradski for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claims 3 and 8.
Regarding claim 11, Shi and Bailey disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify wherein the scan pattern comprises a plurality of image locations, and wherein the central region is formed by overlapping portions of the plurality of image locations. In the same field of endeavor, Bradski discloses wherein the scan pattern comprises a plurality of image locations, and wherein the central region is formed by overlapping portions of the plurality of image locations (Paragraphs 222, 225). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Shi and Bailey with wherein the scan pattern comprises a plurality of image locations, and wherein the central region is formed by overlapping portions of the plurality of image locations of Bradski for the purpose of providing the desired optical effect in order to produce augmented reality (Paragraph 241).
Regarding claim 12, Shi, Bailey and Bradski teach the wearable display device of claim 11, Bradski further discloses wherein the control circuitry is configured to apply super-resolution techniques to the overlapping portions within the central region to increase pixel density (Paragraphs 222, 225). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the wearable display device of Shi and Bailey with the teachings of Bradski for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 11.
Regarding claim 14, Shi and Bailey disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify wherein the phase profile corresponds to a saw-tooth pattern or a Fresnel lens configuration. In the same field of endeavor, Bradski discloses wherein the phase profile corresponds to a saw-tooth pattern or a Fresnel lens configuration (Paragraph 255). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Shi and Bailey with wherein the phase profile corresponds to a saw-tooth pattern or a Fresnel lens configuration of Bradski for the purpose of providing the desired optical effect in order to produce augmented reality (Paragraph 241).
Regarding claim 15, Shi and Bailey teach the wearable display device set forth above for claim 1, Bailey further discloses wherein the control circuitry is further configured the central region at a higher rate than the peripheral region (Paragraphs 33, 43, 64, 65). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the wearable display device of Shi with the teachings of Bailey for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 1. Shi and Bailey disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify to refresh at a higher frame rate. In the same field of endeavor, Bradski discloses to refresh at a higher frame rate (Paragraphs 228, 287, 288). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Shi and Bailey with to refresh at a higher frame rate of Bradski for the purpose of forming a large image (Paragraph 228).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Bailey cures the deficiencies of Shi and addresses the subject matter challenged by Applicant.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHIDERE S SAHLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3329. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
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, 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.
/MAHIDERE S SAHLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 5/15/2026
Prosecution Insights