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
As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statement dated 3/07/2024, 6/05/2024, and 10/02/2025 is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it uses legalese - i.e. it is an almost verbatim copy of claim 1. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
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 1-20 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.
As to claim 1, 5, 12, 13, 15, and 18 the claims recite “orientation associated with” or “condition associated with” which is a subjective term (MPEP 2173.05(b). Specifically, what constitutes “associated” is entirely subjective to a practitioner of the invention and/or the subject themselves. Connected or linked to what? The metes and bounds are unclear since those of ordinary skill in the art would fail to understand what qualifies as an association or connection, and thus infringement becomes unclear (MPEP 2173.05; 2173).
Claims 2-14 inherit their indefiniteness from independent claim 1 respectively.
Claims 16-17 inherit their indefiniteness from independent claim 15 respectively.
Claims 19-20 inherit their indefiniteness from independent claim 18 respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jamali (20210240051).
Regarding claim 1, Jamali discloses an eyebox expander for a wearable head mounted display ([0033], a varifocal optical assembly that provides astigmatism compensation and a display device (e.g., a head-mounted display device) including the varifocal optical assembly) (WHMD) (Fig 10, Fig 11), comprising: a first liquid crystal layer (Fig 11, [0102], first liquid crystal lens in 1100); an electrode arrangement to apply a first voltage to the first liquid crystal layer to modify an orientation associated with the first liquid crystal layer (Fig 10A, [0099], electrodes 1002 may include discrete ring-shaped electrodes corresponding to the Fresnel structures in the spherically lensing optical module); and a compensation layer to redirect light passing through the eyebox expander based on the modification of the orientation associated with the first liquid crystal layer (Fig 11, [0098], second crystal lens layer in 1100).
Regarding claim 2, Jamali discloses wherein the electrode arrangement comprises a patterned electrode (Fig 11 shows a patterned electrode in the top liquid crystal cell).
Regarding claim 3, Jamali discloses wherein the patterned electrode is located between a first electrode (Fig 11 shows a top electrode of the top liquid crystal cell) and a second electrode (Fig 11 shows electrodes positioned on the bottom liquid crystal cell).
Regarding claim 4, Jamali discloses wherein the first liquid crystal layer is located between the patterned electrode and the second electrode (Fig 11).
Regarding claim 5, Jamali discloses wherein the second electrode receives light from the first liquid crystal layer and transmits light toward an eyebox associated with the WHMD based on the modification of the orientation associated with the first liquid crystal layer (Fig 11, [0102], depending on the illumination of the element 1100).
Regarding claim 6, Jamali discloses wherein the patterned electrode comprises a plurality of electrode sections arranged to form an aperture (Fig 6A).
Regarding claim 7, Jamali discloses wherein the electrode arrangement applies the first voltage as a plurality of voltages across the plurality of electrode sections of the patterned electrode (Fig 6A, Fig 11, [0098]-[0102]).
Regarding claim 8, Jamali discloses wherein the electrode arrangement is configured to apply the first voltage between the second electrode and the patterned electrode (Fig 6A, Fig 11, [0098]-[0102]).
Regarding claim 9, Jamali discloses wherein the compensation layer is located between the first electrode and the patterned electrode (Fig 11).
Regarding claim 10, Jamali discloses wherein the compensation layer is a second liquid crystal layer (Fig 10, [0102]).
Regarding claim 11, Jamali discloses wherein the electrode arrangement is configured to apply a second voltage to the second liquid crystal layer based on the first voltage applied to the first crystal layer ([0039], [0102]).
Regarding claim 12, Jamali discloses wherein the modification of the orientation associated with the first liquid crystal layer is based on a condition associated with an eyebox of the WHMD ([0039], [0102]).
Regarding claim 13, Jamali discloses wherein the condition associated with the eyebox is based on at least one of a variation in an interpupillary distance of a user of the WMHD ([0049], output data indicative of distances of HMD 112 from various objects), a variation in eye relief between the WHMD and the user, or an eye movement of the user.
Regarding claim 14, Jamali discloses wherein light input to the eyebox expander from outside the WHMD and light output from the eyebox expander in a direction of a user have a same angle within a margin of difference (Fig 11, [0102], multiple SPP LC lenses (e.g., multiple lens layers) may be optically coupled to form a stack of SPP LC lens, i.e., an SPP LC lens stack, such that given a same tunable optical power range).
Regarding claim 15, Jamali discloses a wearable head mounted display ([0033], a varifocal optical assembly that provides astigmatism compensation and a display device (e.g., a head-mounted display device) including the varifocal optical assembly) (WHMD) (Fig 10, Fig 11), comprising: a first substrate (Fig 10A, [0098]), a second substrate (Fig 10A, [0098]), and an eyebox expander ([0098], SPP LC lens 1000) between the first substrate and the second substrate (Fig 10A), comprising: a first liquid crystal layer (Fig 11, [0102], first liquid crystal lens in 1100); an electrode arrangement to apply a voltage to the first liquid crystal layer to modify an orientation associated with the first liquid crystal layer (Fig 10A, [0099], electrodes 1002 may include discrete ring-shaped electrodes corresponding to the Fresnel structures in the spherically lensing optical module); and a compensation layer to redirect light passing through the eyebox expander based on the modification of the orientation associated with the first liquid crystal layer (Fig 11, [0098], second crystal lens layer in 1100).
Regarding claim 18, Jamali discloses a method to steer light beams in an eyebox of a wearable head mounted display ([0033], a varifocal optical assembly that provides astigmatism compensation and a display device (e.g., a head-mounted display device) (WHMD) (Fig 10, Fig 11), the method comprising: applying a first voltage ([0098]) to a first liquid crystal layer to modify an orientation associated with the first liquid crystal layer to steer light beams in an eyebox of the WHMD (Fig 10A, [0099], electrodes 1002 may include discrete ring-shaped electrodes corresponding to the Fresnel structures in the spherically lensing optical module); and applying a second voltage ([0098]) to a second liquid crystal layer to redirect light passing through a lens of the WHMD based on the modification of the orientation associated with the first liquid crystal layer (Fig 11, [0098], second crystal lens layer in 1100).
Regarding claim 19, Jamali discloses further comprising applying the first voltage in a series of segmented voltages to the first liquid crystal layer via an electrode arrangement comprising a first electrode, a patterned electrode, and a second electrode (Fig 6A, Fig 11, [0098]-[0102]).
Regarding claim 20, Jamali discloses wherein the first liquid crystal layer is located between the patterned electrode and the second electrode (Fig 6A, Fig 11, [0098]-[0102]), and the second liquid crystal layer is located in between the first electrode and the patterned electrode (Fig 6A, Fig 11, [0098]-[0102]), wherein the first liquid crystal layer is located closer in a direction of a user of the WHMD than the second liquid crystal layer (Fig 6A, Fig 11, [0098]-[0102]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jamali (20210240051) in view of Yan (20200049996).
Regarding claim 16, Jamali discloses the invention as described within claim 15 but does not teach further comprising a waveguide comprising an incoupler, an exit pupil expander, and an outcoupler, the waveguide located between the first substrate and the second substrate. However, within a similar endeavor, Yan teaches further comprising a waveguide comprising an incoupler, an exit pupil expander, and an outcoupler, the waveguide located between the first substrate and the second substrate (Fig 7, [0070]-[0071]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the optical device of Jamali with the components of Yan for the purpose of optimizing a dynamically adjustable device formed by optical couplers (Yan, [0017]).
Regarding claim 17, Jamali in view of Yan discloses the invention as described within claim 16 and Yan further teaches wherein the eyebox expander is integrated into or partially arranged over each of the incoupler, the exit pupil expander, and the outcoupler (Fig 7, [0070]-[0071]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the optical device of Jamali with the components of Yan for the purpose of optimizing a dynamically adjustable device formed by optical couplers (Yan, [0017]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Patterson (20190129178), Haddock (20170131568), and Li (20100225834) are examples of a varifocal optical assembly.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sharrief I Broome whose telephone number is (571)272-3454. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm, 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, 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.
Sharrief I. Broome
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/SHARRIEF I BROOME/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872