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
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/27/2024, 04/02/2024 and 05/29/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Preliminary Amendment
Preliminary Amendment that was filed on 11/19/2024 is entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “9550” has been used to designate both “relay system” and "energy sensor"; and the reference numeral “9810” should be “9812” as “second energy subsystem”, paragraph 0024, FIG. 30A.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a hexogonal packing” should read “a hexagonal packing”. 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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-9 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samec et al. (US PUB 2016/0270656; herein after “Samec”; in related embodiments) in view of Karafin (US PUB 2020/0174277).
Samec and Karafin disclose light-field optical power correction system. Therefore, they are analogous art.
Regarding claim 1, Samec teaches an energy system (i.e., a patient-worn ophthalmic device as illustrated in FIGS. 3A-3D and 5) configured to receive imaged light (project lights 38) from first and second imaged sources (light source 18) and direct focused imaged light along a combined energy path (as shown at least in FIG. 5, para. [1488] and [1495], also reflectors may be used to tailor the optical path as desired, para. [1691]), the energy system comprising: an energy combining subsystem (e.g., a fiber combiner) operable to combine the imaged light (lasers 826, 828 and 830) from the first and second imaged sources (see para. [2144], FIG. 25); a first energy subsystem (178) comprising at least one energy focusing element (1020) having a first optical power profile; and a second energy subsystem (178) comprising at least one energy focusing element (1020) having a second optical power profile (i.e., a first waveguide may be configured to modify the wavefront of incident light by a first optical power while a second waveguide may modify the wavefront by a second optical power, see para. [1501], also see para. [1652]); wherein the first and second energy subsystems are configured to cooperate to have a combined optical power profile for directing the imaged light from the first and second imaged sources through energy combining system (i.e., the combined optical power of the first (192) and second (194) lenses may be configured to create another incremental amount of wavefront divergence, see para. [1505] and [1506] FIG. 10D, father the ophthalmic system may include both the stacked waveguide assembly (178) of FIG. 10D and one or more VFE or adaptable optics (1020) of FIGS. 10B and 10C as shown in FIG. 10E, see para. [1508], also see para.1943], FIG. 24D-1, D-2) and forming the focused imaged light along the combined energy path (i.e., the device 1400 can be configured to vary the focus of the projected image by changing an optical path of one or more elements of the display platform 1402. Para. [1694], also see para. [1883], FIG. 20A and para. [2001], FIG. 23A-1, [2041]).
Samec teaches all limitations except for explicit teaching of direct focused imaged light along a combined energy path, and the first and second energy subsystems are configured to cooperate to have a combined optical power profile for directing the imaged light from the first and second imaged sources through energy combining system.
However, in a related field of endeavor Karafin teaches one or more energy devices may be independently paired with two-or-more-path relay combiners, beam splitters, prisms, polarizers, or other energy combining methodology, to pair at least two energy devices to the same portion of the energy surface, see para. [0454].
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 device of Samec such that one or more energy devices may be independently paired with two-or-more-path relay combiners to pair at least two energy devices to the same portion of the energy surface as taught by Karafin to decrease scatter, diffusion, stray light, or chromatic aberration.
Regarding claim 2, Samec according to claim 1 further teaches the first and second optical power profiles are the same with opposite polarities (i.e., The first and second optical powers may be spherical wavefront corrections and they may be positive or negative corrections (e.g., opposite polarities), para. [1501], FIG. 10D).
Regarding claim 3, Samec according to claim 1 further teaches the first and second optical power profiles are different (i.e., The first and second optical powers need not be the same (different profile) degree of correction or same direction of curvature correction, para. [1501], also see para. [2043]).
Regarding claim 4, Samec according to claim 1 further teaches the first and second optical power profiles are correlated to result a desired combined optical power profile (i.e., the combined optical power of the first (192) and second (194) lenses may be configured to create another incremental amount of wavefront divergence, para. [1505], FIG. 10D).
Regarding claim 5, Samec according to claim 1 further teaches the at least one energy focusing element of the first or second energy subsystem comprises at least one of a refractive surface, a diffractive surface, or a curved reflective surface (i.e., VFE (variable focus element) or adaptable optics may also comprise a switchable diffractive optical element e.g., with a diffractive surface, para. [1497] … The adaptive optics elements can include deformable mirrors that are configured to change the shape of the reflective surface to direct light to targeted locations, para. [1687]).
Regarding claim 6, Samec according to claim 1 further teaches the at least one energy focusing element of the first or second energy subsystem comprises at least one lens or Fresnel lens (i.e., a dynamic lens e.g., VFE 1020, para. [1752], FIG. 10B, also see para. [1488]).
Regarding claim 7, Samec according to claim 1 further teaches the at least one energy focusing element of the first or second energy subsystem comprises an array of refractive surfaces, diffractive surfaces, or curved reflective surfaces (i.e., the wearable system 2250 can include optical components, such as, for example, lenses or other refractive components, reflective surfaces, deflectors, reflectors, beam splitters, diffractive optical elements, waveguides, or other optical components, etc., para. [1900], FIG. 22A, also see para. [1488]).
Regarding claim 8, Samec according to claim 7 further teaches the array of refractive surfaces, diffractive surfaces, or curved reflective surfaces are arranged to collectively define a single focal length of the at least one energy focusing element of the first or second energy subsystem (i.e., lenses associated with a waveguide stack through which light is projected to form an image may have an optical power that provides for a specific focal length (e.g., a single focal length) and associated depth plane, para. [1825]).
Regarding claim 9, Samec according to claim 7 further teaches the array of refractive surfaces, diffractive surfaces, or curved reflective surfaces are arranged to define a multifocal power profile of the at least one energy focusing element of the first or second energy subsystem (i.e., at least one waveguide includes a dynamic optical element (focusing element) having variable optical power (e.g., multifocal power profile), see para. [0076]).
Regarding claim 13, Samec fails to teach the array of refractive surfaces, diffractive surfaces, or curved reflective surfaces are assembled in a tiled arrangement.
However, in a related field of endeavor Karafin teaches the energy waveguide may be faceted for designs that provide multiple propagation paths or other column/row or checkerboard orientations, specifically considering but not limited to multiple propagation paths separated by beam-splitters or prisms, or tiled for waveguide configurations that allow for tiling, or a singular monolithic plate, or tiled in a curved arrangement (e.g. faceted cylinder or spherical with geometry alterations to the tiles to mate accordingly), curved surfaces to include but not limited to spherical and cylindrical or any other arbitrary geometry as required for a specific application, para. [0371].
Karafin further teaches the energy waveguide array elements may be reflective surfaces and the arrangement of the elements may be hexagonal, square, irregular, semi-regular, curved, non-planar, spherical, cylindrical, tilted regular, tilted irregular, spatially varying and/or multi-layered, para. [0163].
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 device of Samec such that the energy waveguide may be faceted for designs as tiled for waveguide configurations that allow for tiling, as taught by Karafin where certain geometries, known as convex uniform tilings, may provide advantageous distributions of relay materials by arranging the materials in efficient configurations.
Regarding claim 14, Samec fails to teach the tiled arrangement comprises a square packing arrangement.
However, in a related field of endeavor Karafin teaches FIG. 27 highlights the differences between square packing 27901, hex packing 27902 and irregular packing 27903 of an array of energy waveguide elements., para. [0163].
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 device of Samec such that tiled arrangement may have square packing, as taught by Karafin the pre-fused relay material geometry may have a significant impact on the efficiency of the localization and energy propagation properties of the materials.
Regarding claim 15, Samec fails to teach the tiled arrangement comprises a hexogonal packing arrangement.
However, in a related field of endeavor Karafin teaches FIG. 27 highlights the differences between square packing 27901, hex packing 27902 and irregular packing 27903 of an array of energy waveguide elements., para. [0162].
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 device of Samec such that tiled arrangement may have hex packing, as taught by Karafin the pre-fused relay material geometry may have a significant impact on the efficiency of the localization and energy propagation properties of the materials.
Regarding claim 16, Samec fails to teach the tiled arrangement comprises an aperiodic packing arrangement.
However, in a related field of endeavor Karafin teaches FIG. 27 highlights the differences between square packing 27901, hex packing 27902 and irregular packing 27903 of an array of energy waveguide elements., para. [0162].
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 device of Samec such that tiled arrangement may have irregular packing (aperiodic), as taught by Karafin the pre-fused relay material geometry may have a significant impact on the efficiency of the localization and energy propagation properties of the materials.
Regarding claim 17, Samec fails to teach the tiled arrangement comprises a periodic packing arrangement.
However, in a related field of endeavor Karafin teaches FIG. 27 highlights the differences between square packing 27901, hex packing 27902 and irregular packing 27903 of an array of energy waveguide elements., para. [0162]. An irregular or semi-regular packing of the array of energy waveguides, para. [0354].
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 device of Samec such that tiled arrangement may have semi-regular packing (periodic), as taught by Karafin the pre-fused relay material geometry may have a significant impact on the efficiency of the localization and energy propagation properties of the materials.
Regarding claim 18, Samec according to claim 1 further teaches the combined optical power profile is adjustable (i.e., lenses or other optical element that project the beam, have variable optical power that can be selected or adjusted, for example, by applying an electrical signal thereto, para. [1825]).
Regarding claim 19, Samec according to claim 18 further teaches the at least one energy focusing element of the first or second energy subsystem comprises an adjustable power profile (i.e., lenses or other optical element that project the beam, have variable optical power that can be selected or adjusted, for example, by applying an electrical signal thereto, para. [1825]).
Regarding claim 20, Samec according to claim 19 further teaches the at least one energy focusing element of the first or second energy subsystem comprises an electrically controlled focusing element (i.e., an electro-active lens, para. [1488]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 10, the prior art does not teach, or renders obvious, regarding the array of refractive surfaces, diffractive surfaces, or curved reflective surfaces comprise a pair of first and second arrays in series, wherein the first array has higher optical power in a first dimension than a second dimension, and the second array has higher optical power in the second dimension than the first dimension.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Damm et al. (US PUB 20170102671) teaches “a holographic light field imaging device may optically compress the light field into a lower-dimensional, coded representation for algorithmic reconstruction by transforming the light field in a known, calculable way. The resulting wavefront may be optically compressed before capture, wherein the compression may later be reversed via software algorithm, recovering a representation of the original light field.”, see Abstract.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUSTAK CHOUDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-5247. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM-5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ricky Mack can be reached on (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 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.
/MUSTAK CHOUDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
February 25, 2026