CTNF 18/699,940 CTNF 89169 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Election/Restrictions 08-25 AIA Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I, claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 4/16/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the examination of all of the claims is not believed to create an undue burden on the USPTO and that the subject matter among the inventions is not independent and distinct as required by statute and that different classifications as recited by the USPTO are not independent adequate grounds for restriction since the USPTO . This is not found persuasive because as previously disclosed the head mounted display of Invention I is not disclosed within Invention II. Therefore, both inventions have been previously shown to be two distinct groups of a device and a method. Additionally, having a method that includes receiving ambient light and disposed inner optical coatings are also distinct and would require more search tactics and substantially increase the search burden . The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Information Disclosure Statement As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statement dated 4/10/2024 is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 4 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 4 and 6 recite the limitation “the optical coatings”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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 7-9 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. In at least claim 7, 8, and 9 the word “substantially” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear how the applicant is measuring an element to be substantially coincident: since these are terms of degree/ subjective terms . The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degrees, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). See In re Wiggins, 488 F. 2d 538, 541, 179 USPQ 421, 423 (CCPA 1973) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim (s) 1, 2, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Martinez (20170293143) . Regarding claim 1, Martinez discloses (see at least Fig 1, [0015]-[0024]) a head-mounted display device (Fig 1, [0015], optical system 100) comprising: a light engine (105) to generate a display light ([0015], display panel 105) ; and a non-planar lightguide (curved lightguide 127) having a world-facing surface (145) , an eye-facing surface (150) , and an incoupler surface (140) proximate the light engine (105) to receive the generated display light into a volume of the non-planar lightguide (Fig 1A, [0016], 120 receives display light 155 generated by display panel 105 through an input surface 140 peripherally located from a viewing region 160 and emits display light 155 along an eye-ward direction) ; wherein the non-planar lightguide (127) is to direct the generated display light from the incoupler surface to an eye of a user (Fig 1A, [0022], display light 155 is guided through curved lightguide 127 from input surface 140 to viewing region 160) via a series of no more than nine internal reflective interactions of the display light (Fig 1A, [0022], 120 imparts reflective optical power via four total internal reflection interactions and one reflection off of optical combiner 135 and within the claimed range) with the world-facing surface (145) and/or (Fig 1A, [0015]) the eye-facing surface (150) of the non-planar lightguide (127) . Regarding claim 2, Martinez discloses wherein the series of internal reflective interactions includes a first number of total internal reflection (TIR) interactions with the world-facing surface (Fig 1A, [0022], curved eyepiece 120 imparts reflective optical power via four total internal reflection interactions and one reflection off of optical combiner 135) and/or the eye-facing surface and a second number of partial internal reflection (PIR) interactions ([0024], 135 may be a partial reflector) with the world-facing surface and/or the eye-facing surface (Fig 1A, [0024], viewing region 160 is partially transmissive to ambient light incident through world facing surface 145 such that viewing region 160 is see-through) . Regarding claim 9, Martinez discloses wherein the incoupler surface (140) is a substantially planar surface without an optical incoupler structure (Fig 1A, [0016], input surface 140 peripherally located from a viewing region 160) . Regarding claim 10, Martinez discloses wherein to direct the generated display light from the incoupler surface (140) to the eye of a user includes to outcouple the display light from the non-planar lightguide (127) via partial internal reflection (Fig 1A, [0024], 135 may be a partial reflector) and without an outcoupling optical structure on the eye-facing surface (Fig 1A, [0016], input surface 140 peripherally located from a viewing region 160 and emits display light 155 along an eye-ward direction in viewing region 160 toward a user's eye 165 within an eyebox 170) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinez (20170293143) in view of Luttmann (20150260992) . Regarding claim 3, Martinez discloses to increase at least a partial reflectivity ([0024], 135 may be a partial reflector) for a subset of the no more than nine internal reflective interactions ([0022], 120 imparts reflective optical power via four total internal reflection interactions and one reflection off of optical combiner 135) but does not teach further comprising one or more optical coatings on one or more of a portion of the eye-facing surface or a portion of the world-facing surface, the one or more optical coatings. However, Luttmann teaches further comprising one or more optical coatings ([0018], various optical coatings/layers) on one or more of a portion of the eye-facing surface or a portion of the world-facing surface ([0019], switchable reflector 135 may coat the entire sides including TIR portion 140) , the one or more optical coatings ([0018], various optical coatings/layers). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to combine the optical device of Martinez with the coating components of Luttmann for the purpose of reducing the influence of birefringence within an optical system (Luttmann, [0019]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinez (20170293143) in view of Cakmakci (9389422) . Regarding claim 4, Martinez discloses the invention as described within claim 1 but does not teach wherein the one or more optical coatings include an inner optical coating on a portion of the eye-facing surface to increase a reflectivity for a subset of the no more than nine internal reflective interactions that occur via partial internal reflection (PIR) at the portion of the eye- facing surface, and wherein the portion of the eye-facing surface is selected based at least in part on a refractive index of the non-planar lightguide. However, Cakmakci teaches wherein the one or more optical coatings (Fig 1A, Col 2, lines 47-50) include an inner optical coating (130, 135) on a portion of the eye-facing surface to increase a reflectivity for a subset of the no more than nine internal reflective interactions (Col 3, lines 50-53) that occur via partial internal reflection (PIR) at the portion of the eye-facing surface (Fig 1A, Col 3, lines 19-23) , and wherein the portion of the eye-facing surface is selected based at least in part on a refractive index of the non-planar lightguide (Col 3, Col 3, lines 56-60) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to combine the optical device of Martinez with the layered components of Cakmakci for the purpose of increasing the efficiency of an optical system (Cakmakci, Col 2, lines 59-61) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinez (20170293143) in view of Cakmakci (9389422) and in further view of Ozan Cakmakci, " Optical design of a thin curved lightguide and manufacturing using ophthalmic approaches ", Proc. SPIE 11062, Digital Optical Technologies 2019, 110620H (21 Jun 2019); https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2530526 herein referred to as Ozan . Regarding claim 5, Martinez in in view of Cakmakci discloses the invention as described within claim 4 but does not teach wherein the inner optical coating has a first average reflectance over a first range of angles of incidence and a second average reflectance that increases over a second range of angles of incidence, wherein angles of incidence of the second range of angles of incidence are higher than those of the first range of angles of incidence. However, Ozan teaches wherein the inner optical coating has a first average reflectance over a first range of angles of incidence (Section 2.4, Fig 9a shows angles of incidence on the eyeside surface, in the order of light propagation from the source to the eye, are 56.9°, 47.4°, 35.5°, 23.5°, 11.43°, 0.6°) and a second average reflectance that increases over a second range of angles of incidence (Section 2.4, Fig 9a shows angles of incidence on the worldside are 59.9°, 49.3°, 38.5°, 27.6°, 16.5°, 5.2°, in the order of light propagation from the source to the eye) , wherein angles of incidence of the second range of angles of incidence are higher than those of the first range of angles of incidence (Fig 9a shows that the angles of incidence on the worldside are higher than those of the angles of incidence on the eyeside surface) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to combine the optical device of Martinez and Cakmakci with the coating materials of Ozan for the purpose of increasing optimum efficiency within a coated ophthalmic device (Ozan, Section 2.4) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinez (20170293143) in view of Ozan Cakmakci, " Optical design of a thin curved lightguide and manufacturing using ophthalmic approaches ", Proc. SPIE 11062, Digital Optical Technologies 2019, 110620H (21 Jun 2019); https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2530526 herein referred to as Ozan . Regarding claim 6, Martinez discloses the invention as described within claim 1 but does not teach wherein the one or more optical coatings include an outer optical coating on a portion of the world-facing surface to increase a reflectivity for a subset of the no more than nine internal reflective interactions that occur via partial internal reflection (PIR) at the portion of the world- facing surface, the portion of the world-facing surface based on a refractive index of the non- planar lightguide. However, Ozan teaches wherein the one or more optical coatings include an outer optical coating on a portion of the world-facing surface (Fig 9, Section 2.4, eyeside and worldside coatings) to increase a reflectivity for a subset of the no more than nine internal reflective interactions that occur via partial internal reflection (PIR) at the portion of the world- facing surface (Fig 9, Section 2.4, optimum coating reflectivities to maximize efficiency) , the portion of the world-facing surface based on a refractive index of the non-planar lightguide (Section 2.4 discloses a refractive index of the material used as Zeonex E-48R ( n d ≈ 1.53)) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to combine the optical device of Martinez with the coating materials of Ozan for the purpose of increasing optimum efficiency within a coated ophthalmic device (Ozan, Section 2.4) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinez (20170293143) in view of Cakmakci (20200132919) herein referred to as Cakmakci ‘919 . Regarding claim 7, Martinez discloses the invention as described within claim 1 but does not teach further comprising a substantially transparent optical compensation shell coupled to the non-planar lightguide, the substantially transparent optical compensation shell to correct optical aberrations of world-side light passing through the non-planar lightguide. However, Cakmakci ‘919 teaches further comprising a substantially transparent optical compensation shell (Fig 6, [0032], transparent model of a five mm thick synthetic resin shell 601) coupled to the non-planar lightguide (Fig 6 shows 601 coupled to 101) , the substantially transparent optical compensation shell (601) to correct optical aberrations of world-side light passing through the non-planar lightguide (Fig 6, [0016], first surface of the lightguide that first receives light from the microdisplay is curved, and, according to certain embodiments, is freeform, so as to correct for astigmatism) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to combine the optical device of Martinez with the components of Cakmakci ‘919 for the purpose of decreasing aberrations and blur within the line of sight for an eyewear user (Cakmakci ‘919, [0032]). Regarding claim 8 Martinez discloses coupled to a surface of the non-planar lightguide with an optically clear adhesive (Fig 3A, [0031], lens body 125 is mated to lens body 130 using a clear adhesive) but does not teach a substantially transparent optical compensation shell. However, Cakmakci ‘919 teaches a substantially transparent optical compensation shell (Fig 6, [0032], transparent model of a five mm thick synthetic resin shell 601). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to combine the optical device of Martinez with the components of Cakmakci ‘919 for the purpose of decreasing aberrations and blur within the line of sight for an eyewear user (Cakmakci ‘919, [0032]) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Martinez (20170010465) Nakamura (20020063913) are examples of an eyepiece optical unit that utilizes a wide visual filed to reduce chromatic aberrations . 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 Application/Control Number: 18/699,940 Page 2 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/699,940 Page 3 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/699,940 Page 4 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/699,940 Page 5 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/699,940 Page 6 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/699,940 Page 7 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/699,940 Page 8 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/699,940 Page 9 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/699,940 Page 10 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/699,940 Page 11 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/699,940 Page 12 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/699,940 Page 13 Art Unit: 2872
Prosecution Insights