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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-11, filed 6/5/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the newly cited reference of Tanaka et al. (U.S. 2012/0228481).
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.
Claim(s) 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hudman (U.S. 2021/0132323) in view of Tanaka et al. (U.S. 2012/0228481).
Regarding claim 16, Hudman discloses a head-mountable device (100, Fig. 1; page 2, para [0022]) comprising:
a display (106, Fig. 1; page 2, para [0022]); and
an optical assembly (112, Fig. 1; page 2, para [0023]) comprising a pair of lenses (such as 404 and 406 of 212 of 130l and 130r, Figs. 1-2 and 4A; page 3, para [0028]; page 4, para [0036]) providing a view to the display (106, Fig. 1) along an optical axis (such as optical axis 410 along 408, Figs. 1-3 and 4A; page 6, para [0045]), the pair of lenses (such as 404 and 406 of 212 of 130l and 130r, Figs. 1-2 and 4A) having surfaces that are facing each other (such as surfaces 418 and 424, Fig. 4A; page 5, para [0042]).
Hudman does not expressly disclose that the pair of lenses (such as 404 and 406 of 212 of 130l and 130r, Figs. 1-2 and 4A) have lubricious coatings on surfaces of the pair of lenses that are facing each other (such as surfaces 418 and 424, Fig. 4A; page 5, para [0042]), the lubricious coatings having an index of refraction that does not exceed an index of refraction of the pair of lenses. However, Tanaka discloses an optical lens assembly (103, Fig. 7B; page 4, para [0068]) comprising a pair of lenses (103a and 103b, Fig. 7B; page 4, para [0069]) having lubricious coatings on surfaces of the pair of lenses that are facing each other (surfaces of 103a and 103b facing each other, Fig. 7B; page 4, para [0069]), the lubricious coatings having an index of refraction that does not exceed an index of refraction of the pair of lenses, such as having the same refractive index as the pair of lenses (Fig. 7B; page 4, para [0069]) in order to suppress any reflections at an interface between the pair of lenses (Fig. 7B; page 4, para [0069]).
Therefore, before the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the pair of lenses (Hudman: such as 404 and 406 of 212 of 130l and 130r, Figs. 1-2 and 4A) of Hudman with the lubricious coatings (Tanaka: Fig. 7B; page 4, para [0069]) of Tanaka such that the lubricious coatings are on surfaces of the pair of lenses that are facing each other (Hudman: such as surfaces 418 and 424, Fig. 4A; Tanaka: surfaces of 103a and 103b facing each other, Fig. 7B; page 4, para [0069]), the lubricious coatings having an index of refraction that does not exceed an index of refraction of the pair of lenses, such as having the same refractive index as the pair of lenses (Tanaka: Fig. 7B; page 4, para [0069]) in order to obtain the benefits of suppressing any reflections at an interface between the pair of lenses as taught by Tanaka (Fig. 7B; page 4, para [0069]). Examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention would have been motivated to provide the lubricious coatings of Tanaka (Fig. 7B; page 4, para [0069]) on the surfaces of the pair of lenses of Hudman that are facing each other (Hudman: such as surfaces 418 and 424, Fig. 4A) in order to solve the analogous problem of suppressing any reflections at an interface between a pair of lenses by using lubricious coatings having a refractive index that is the same as the pair of lenses as taught by Tanaka (page 4, para [0069]).
Regarding claim 17, Hudman as modified by Tanaka discloses a head-mountable device with all the limitations of claim 16 above and further discloses wherein the pair of lenses (Hudman: such as 404 and 406 of 212 of 130l and 130r, Figs. 1-2 and 4A) are movable relative to each other to adjust an effective spherical correction (Hudman: page 5, para [0043]).
Regarding claim 18, Hudman as modified by Tanaka discloses a head-mountable device with all the limitations of claim 16 above and further discloses wherein the pair of lenses (Hudman: such as 404 and 406 of 212 of 130l and 130r, Figs. 1-2 and 4A) are movable relative to each other to adjust an effective cylindrical correction (Hudman: page 5, para [0043]).
Regarding claim 19, Hudman as modified by Tanaka discloses a head-mountable device with all the limitations of claim 18 above and further discloses the pair of lenses (Hudman: such as 404 and 406 of 212 of 130l and 130r, Figs. 1-2 and 4A) are rotatable about the optical axis (Hudman: 410, Fig. 4; page 6, para [0045]) of the optical assembly (Hudman: 112, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 20, Hudman as modified by Tanaka discloses a head-mountable device with all the limitations of claim 16 above and further discloses wherein the pair of lenses (Hudman: such as 404 and 406 of 212 of 130l and 130r, Figs. 1-2 and 4A) have identical, non-rotationally symmetric surfaces oriented in a complementary configuration (Hudman: such as lenses 404 and 406 being Alvarez lenses having opposing complementary refractive surfaces, Fig. 4; page 5, para [0039]; page 4, para [0033]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art as presently searched does not disclose the head-mountable device of claim 1 (having all the combination of features including a frame; a display supported by the frame; an optical assembly providing a view to the display, the optical assembly comprising: a lens assembly being removably coupled to the frame and comprising a lens and an identifier corresponding to a type of vision correction provided by the lens assembly; and a pair of lenses moveable relative to each other to adjust an effective spherical correction; and a processor operably connected to the lens assembly via a communication interface while the lens assembly is removably coupled to the frame, the processor being configured to control movement of the pair of lenses based on the identifier of the lens assembly and a target vision correction of the optical assembly) and does not disclose the head-mountable device of claim 10 (having all the combination of features including a frame; a display supported by the frame; and an optical assembly providing a view to the display, the optical assembly comprising: a pair of lenses moveable relative to each other to adjust an effective spherical correction; a first connector on a first side of the pair of lenses for releasably engaging a first lens assembly having a first spherical correction with a positive diopter the first connector providing a communication interface with an identifier indicating a type of vision correction provided by the first lens assembly; a second connector on a second side of the pair of lenses for releasably engaging a second lens assembly having a second spherical correction with a negative diopter, the second connector providing a communication interface with an identifier indicating a type of vision correction provided by the second lens assembly; and a third connector on the second side of the pair of lenses for releasably engaging a third lens assembly having a cylindrical correction, the third connector providing a communication interface with an identifier indicating a type of vision correction provided by the third lens assembly). Claims 2-9 are allowable as being dependent on claim 1. Claims 11-15 are allowable as being dependent upon claim 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL CHANG LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7923. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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, Michael H Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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.
/PAUL C LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights