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 .
The Office acknowledges the amendment dated 17 February 2026, in which:
Claims 1-14 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments/Amendments/Remarks
Applicant’s arguments filed 17 February 2026 have been carefully considered but are unpersuasive.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 8, Applicant argues that the combination of Lu and Strandborg fails to disclose or suggest "controlling lightguide segments... to direct light... towards the pupil." Applicant asserts that Lu only describes "enhancing display resolution" and lacks disclosure related to "directing light."
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Lu explicitly characterizes the segments of its resolution-enhancing device as "light steering switch(es) (LSS)" (Lu, paragraph [0043]). By definition, a "light steering switch" is an optical component that directs or redirects light. Furthermore, Lu teaches that the controller activates these steering switches specifically "in the gaze direction" (Lu, paragraph [0043]). In the field of near-eye displays, "directing light in the gaze direction" is functionally equivalent to directing light "towards the pupil," as the light must enter the pupil to be perceived. Lu’s foveal enhancement (shifting pixels) inherently requires the light from the selected segment to be directed to and centered on the user's pupil.
Regarding the control logic based on pupil orientation and "pre-determined angular distance," Applicant argues that this logic is missing from the prior art. However, Strandborg provides the precise technical teaching of this logic. Strandborg explicitly teaches a processor configured to "detect when the relative orientation of the pupil is greater than a predefined angle" (Strandborg, Col. 9, lines 15-27) and to identify image segments "whose pixels' angular distance (D) from the gaze point is greater than a pre-determined angular distance" (Strandborg, Col. 9, lines 15-27).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to modify Lu's hardware with Strandborg's logic. Lu provides a gaze-controlled segmented lightguide capable of optical steering, but focuses only on foveal resolution. Strandborg identifies the known problem of peripheral distortion in HMDs and provides the specific gaze-based logic to suppress those distorted segments. It is a predictable substitution to implement Strandborg's suppression goal using Lu’s existing light-steering switches—steering the light "away" from the pupil—rather than Strandborg's software-based "black pixel" method.
Regarding claim 7/14 and the "M x N pixels" limitation, Strandborg teaches a "group of pixels" comprising a "matrix of 2 by 2 pixels, 4 by 4 pixels" (Strandborg, Col. 7 lines 4-7). While this does not literally meet the "greater than or equal to 8" limitation, the choice of a specific matrix size (e.g., 8x8 vs 4x4) is a matter of routine design choice and engineering optimization regarding control granularity and controller complexity. Such a choice lacks an inventive step and is well within the skill of a POSITA.
For the reasons above, the rejection is maintained
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 of this title, 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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (US 2019/0318677, hereinafter “Lu”) in view of Strandborg et al. (US 12,106,734, hereinafter “Strandborg”).
With respect to Claim 8, Lu teaches a method comprising:
processing gaze-tracking data, collected by gaze-tracking means (Lu: Para. [0039]; Fig. 6, eye tracking 222), to determine at least one of:
a gaze direction of a given eye of a user (Lu: Para. [0039] – [0040], processing for gaze direction), wherein the light source has a plurality of pixels (Lu: Para. [0039], a pixel array comprising a plurality of display pixels) and
controlling at least one of a plurality of lightguide segments of a lightguide per eye to direct light, received from a corresponding group of pixels of the light source, towards the pupil of the given eye (Lu: Para. [0040], [0062], [0070], Figs. 3A-B, activating the selected device segment in the gaze direction) based on the at least one of: the gaze direction of the given eye, the position of the pupil, the orientation of the pupil (Lu teaches the foveal aspect of this control. The combination with Strandborg provides the full set of gaze parameters to make this control obvious), wherein the lightguide is arranged on an optical path of the light source, the lightguide comprising the plurality of lightguide segments that are individually controllable (Lu: Para. [0039], an “optical block” comprising a “segmented resolution enhancing device (SRED)” with a “plurality of device segments configured to be individually activated”), wherein the plurality of lightguide segments correspond to a plurality of groups of pixels of the light source (Lu: Para. [0039], each device segment being optically coupled to a different group of display pixels of the pixel array).
Lu’s system is motivated by foveal resolution enhancement (micro-shifting the image), see Abstract, Para [0053], however, Lu fails to teach using the gaze data to determine pupil position or orientation, nor does it teach any active control strategy for the peripheral (non-gaze) segments, which are a known source of optical artifacts.
However, Strandborg teaches:
a position of a pupil of the given eye relative to an imaginary plane that spans across a field of view of a light source per eye, an orientation of the pupil of the given eye relative to an optical axis of the field of view of the light source (Strandborg processing “gaze-tracking data” to determine “gaze direction,” “relative position of a pupil,” and “relative orientation… of the pupil”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lu’s gaze-controlled system, to incorporate Strandborg’s more comprehensive gaze-data processing, in order to enable more advanced functions, such as the peripheral control to suppress peripheral distortion (Strandborg: Col. 2, line 52 – Col. 3, line 42).
With respect to Claim 9, the combination of Lu as modified by Strandborg teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the lightguide is implemented as a liquid-crystal (LC) device (Lu: Para. [0051], [0055], SRED segments are implemented as an “active LC device”, “active LC HWP”, or “liquid crystal (LC) Pancharatnam Berry Phase (PBP) grating”).
With respect to Claim 10, the combination of Lu as modified by Strandborg teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the LC device comprises a first LC layer and a second LC layer, wherein the first LC layer, when addressed, directs light received thereat from a given pixel towards a first direction, and wherein the second LC layer, when addressed, directs light received thereat from the first LC layer towards a second direction, the second direction being orthogonal to the first direction (Lu: Para. [0052], [0054], a 2D steering structure that “comprises a second polarization grating disposed in sequence with a second polarization switch”; with a “rotational offset… substantially 90 degrees”).
With respect to Claim 11, the combination of Lu as modified by Strandborg teaches the method of claim 8, further comprising:
detecting when the orientation of the pupil is greater than a pre-determined angle (Strandborg: claim 2);
when it is detected that the orientation of the pupil is greater than the pre-determined angle (Strandborg: claim 2),
determining a gaze position in the imaginary plane spanning across the field of view of the light source, based on the gaze direction of the given eye (Lu: Para. [0039]; Strandborg: Col. 9, lines 16-27);
identifying at least one group of pixels of the light source whose pixels' angular distance from the gaze position is greater than a pre-determined angular distance (Strandborg: Col. 9, lines 15-43); and
controlling at least one lightguide segment corresponding to said at least one group of pixels to direct light, received from said at least one group of pixels, away from the pupil of the given eye (Lu provides the gaze-controlled segmented hardware, light steering switch LSS, Para. [0084]. Strandborg provides the motivation and control logic for suppressing distorted peripheral light based on gaze. It would have been obvious to use Lu’s hardware to perform the function taught by Strandborg, by steering light “away from the pupil” as an optical equivalent to Strandborg’s “replace … with black pixels” method [Abstract] – in order to achieve the same functional goal of mitigating peripheral artifacts.).
With respect to Claim 12, the combination of Lu as modified by Strandborg teaches the method of claim 8, further comprising:
detecting when the orientation of the pupil is greater than a pre-determined angle (Strandborg: claim 2);
when it is detected that the orientation of the pupil is greater than the pre-determined angle (Strandborg: claim 2),
determining a gaze position in the imaginary plane spanning across the field of view of the light source, based on the gaze direction of the given eye;
identifying at least one group of pixels of the light source whose pixels' angular distance from the gaze position is greater than a pre-determined angular distance; and
controlling at least one lightguide segment corresponding to said at least one group of pixels to direct light, received from said at least one group of pixels, towards a centre of at least one lens, wherein the at least one lens is arranged on the optical path of the light source, and wherein the lightguide is arranged between the light source and the at least one lens (The combination of Lu as modified by Strandborg teaches using gaze data and orientation angles to identify and actively control peripheral segments to mitigate artifacts, as detailed for claim 11. Directing light “towards a centre of the at least one lens” is a well-known, obvious alternative design choice for managing stray light, representing a predictable alternative to steering it “away from the pupil” as in claim 11.).
With respect to Claim 13, the combination of Lu as modified by Strandborg teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the pre-determined angle and/or the pre-determined angular distance are determined based on at least one of: an angular extent of the field of view of the light source, a distance between the light source and the at least one lens (Strandborg: Col. 9, lines 29-44).
With respect to Claim 14, the combination of Lu as modified by Strandborg teaches the method of claim 8, wherein a group of pixels that corresponds to a given lightguide segment is in a form of M x N pixels, wherein M and N are integers that are larger than or equal to 8 (Lu: at Para. [0039], teaches “a different group of display pixels”. Strandborg, at Col. 7 lines 4-7, further teaches that this “group of pixels” can be a matrix of 2 by 2 pixels, 4 by 4 pixels, etc. While Strandborg’s examples do not meet the larger than or equal to 8 limitation, they establish the concept of an M x N matrix. Scaling this matrix from 4x4 (taught by Strandborg) to 8x8 (as claimed) is a mere matter of design choice, representing a simple, predictable trade-off between control granularity and system complexity, and would be obvious to POSITA.).
Apparatus claims (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7) are drawn to the apparatus corresponding to the method of using same as claimed in claims (8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 & 14). Therefore, apparatus claims (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7) correspond to method claims (8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 & 14), and are rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN EARLES whose telephone number is (571)272-4628. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday at 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, William Boddie can be reached on 571-272-0666. 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.
/BRYAN EARLES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2625
Prosecution Insights