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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on April 3, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and have been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC§ 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-13 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sander (US Publication 2007/0017993).
In regard to claim 1, note Sander discloses a component (zoom system 520, optical elements 3 and main objective 510) for data glasses (Galilean stereomicroscope 500) (see figures 1-3), the component (500) comprising: a radiation source (microscope beam) designed to emit electromagnetic radiation during operation, a multifocal element (bifocal lens 3) with at least a first region (1) and at least a second region (2), and an imaging system designed to image electromagnetic radiation emitted from the radiation source into a region outside the component (See [0029]), wherein the first region comprises an invariable first refractive power and the second region comprises an invariable second refractive power different from the first refractive power, the multifocal element (3) is arranged in the imaging system (500), and ]the first region and the second region are arranged concentrically to each other, and the component is designed to image electromagnetic radiation simultaneously at least in a first focal plane (12) and in a second focal plane (22) different from the first focal plane (See Figs 2-3, and [0030]-[0031]).
In regard to claim 2, note Sander discloses wherein the positions of the first focal plane and the second focal plane are invariable as shown in Figure 2.
In regard to claim 4, note Sander discloses wherein the imaging system comprises a deflection element (510) which-is-designed to deflect electromagnetic radiation impinging on the deflection element in different directions (see Fig 3).
In regard to claim 5, note Sander discloses wherein the deflection element (510) comprises at least one optical element which is rotatable along at least one axis (See Fig 3).
In regard to claim 6, note Sander discloses wherein the deflection element (510) is arranged between the radiation source (14) and the multifocal element (3).
In regard to claim 7, note Sander discloses wherein the imaging system comprises a beam shaping element (zoom system 520) which-is-designed to change the beam diameter of the electromagnetic radiation impinging on the beam shaping element (3).
In regard to claim 8, note Sander discloses wherein the multifocal element (3) is arranged in the beam shaping element (520).
In regard to claim 9, note Sander discloses wherein the imaging system comprises a two-dimensional waveguide (510).
In regard to claim 10, note Sander discloses wherein the multifocal element (3) is arranged between the radiation source (14) and the two-dimensional waveguide (510).
In regard to claim 11, note Sander discloses wherein the imaging system (stereomicroscope) comprises a detection element (eyepieces), which is designed to detect the viewing direction of an eye (See [0028]).
In regard to claim 12, note Sander discloses wherein the detection element comprises a controller and an optical element, wherein the controller is designed to move the optical element (zoom system 520 and main objective 510)).
In regard to claim 13, note Sander discloses wherein the multifocal element (3) is arranged between the radiation source and the detection element (520 and 510)
In regard to claim 16, note Sander discloses wherein the data glasses are configured for displaying an augmented reality (See [0029] stereomicroscope image)
In regard to claim 17, note Sander discloses data glasses comprising the component according to claim 1 (See Figs 1-3).
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, 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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sander (US Pub. 2007/0017993) in view of Bor (US Pub. 2021/0321869).
In regard to claim 3, note Sander discloses the component for data glasses according to claim 1. However, it fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first refractive power and the second refractive power differ from each other by at least 0.5 diopter.
In analogous art, Bor discloses a visual identification system which includes multifocal lenses, wherein the first refractive power and the second refractive power differ from each other by at least 0.5 diopter (See Bor [0032]).
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 primary reference Sander such that the multifocal lenses including the first refractive power and the second refractive power differ from each other by at least 0.5 diopter, in order to adjust images, coincide on the retina.
Claim 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sander (US Pub. 2007/0017993) in view of Manassen et al. (US Pub. 2013/0044331).
In regard to claim 14, note Sander discloses the component for data glasses according to claim 1. However, it fails to explicitly disclose wherein the imaging system comprises a holographic mirror.
In analogous art, Manassen discloses the microscopy system comprises a holographic mirror (See [0083]).
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 primary reference Sander such that imaging system comprises a holographic mirror, in order extend to a wide variety of microscopy system.
In regard to claim 15, note Sander and Manassen discloses wherein the multifocal element is arranged between the radiation source and the holographic mirror (See Manassen Fig. 7 and [0083]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2016/0260258: note methods and systems provide three dimensional gradient and dynamic light fields for display in 3D technologies, in particular 3D augmented reality (AR) devices, by coupling visual accommodation and visual convergence to the same plane at any depth of an object of interest in real time.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lin Ye whose telephone number is (571 )272-7372. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00 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 TC director, Alford Kindred can be reached on (571) 272-4037. 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.
/LIN YE/
Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2638