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 10/01/2024 being considered by the examiner. A copy of initialed form is attached for Applicant’s record.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9, 12, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anderson et al.(US 20220387131 A1 of record, hereafter Anderson).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Anderson discloses a digital ocular system and method thereof (see figs. 2A, 2B, 5-12; "immersive display 200, 500, 600, 700, 800, 900, 1000, 1100, 1200"), comprising:
a housing ("housing 220") defining a housing cavity (see par.[0060]);
a lens assembly (see e.g. figs.2A, 2B and par.[0087]: "Each eyepiece assembly
includes an LCD and/or LED panel display, optics (e.g., lenses, mirrors, etc.)")
positioned within the housing cavity, the lens assembly including an eye piece
having a front lens (this is implicit, at least from fig.2B) through which a user of
the digital ocular system views a target object (according to the application, the
user views the target only on the display screen. The application does not
disclose a see-through ocular system. Likewise, in Anderson, the user sees the target
on the display screen);
a display screen positioned within the housing cavity (see e.g. fig.2B and par.[0087]);
a proximity sensor (e.g., sensor 224, see par.[0068]) connected to the housing, wherein the proximity sensor is configured to detect when the user is within a predetermined standoff distance of the front lens (see par.[0068]), and to output an electronic sensor signal that is indicative of the user being outside of the predetermined standoff distance (This is implicit in the teaching of par.[0068]); and
a processor configured to adjust an output state of the display screen via a
display control signal in response to the electronic sensor signal (see e.g. pars.
[0011], [0044], [0096]).
Regarding claim 2, Anderson discloses the digital ocular system of claim 1. Anderson further discloses wherein the digital ocular system is configured as digital binoculars in which the eye piece includes a pair of eye pieces, the lens assembly includes a pair of lens assemblies within the pair of eye pieces, and the display screen includes a pair of display screens (see figs. 2A, 2B, 5-12).
Regarding claim 4, Anderson discloses the digital ocular system of claim 1. Anderson further discloses wherein the proximity sensor includes an infrared sensor (see par. [0068]).
Regarding claim 5, Anderson discloses the digital ocular system of claim 1. Anderson further discloses wherein the proximity sensor is connected to a surface of the housing and adjacent to the eye piece (see par.[0068] and fig. 2A).
Regarding claim 6, Anderson discloses the digital ocular system of claim 1. Anderson further discloses wherein the proximity sensor is positioned within the housing cavity and adjacent to the display screen (see fig. 2A).
Regarding claim 7, Anderson discloses the digital ocular system of claim 1. Anderson further discloses wherein the processor is configured to change the output state of the display screen in response to the electronic sensor signal by turning off the display screen when the user is not within the predetermined standoff distance of the front lens (see par.[0083]).
Regarding claim 12, Anderson discloses the digital ocular system of claim 9, wherein the proximity sensor includes an infrared sensor, and wherein detecting when the user of the digital ocular system is not within the predetermined standoff distance of the front lens includes transmitting an infrared beam toward the user via the infrared sensor (par.[0068]).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Anderson discloses the digital ocular system of claim 9. Anderson discloses the ocular system is configurable for changing the output state of the display screen in response to the electronic sensor signal includes dimming or turning off the display screen when the user is not within the predetermined standoff distance of the front lens (see par.[0083]).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al.(US 20220387131 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Juhasz et al. (ES2610562T3).
Anderson et al. discloses the digital ocular system of claim 1. However, Anderson does not disclose wherein the display screen includes an organic light-emitting diode screen, and wherein the digital ocular system is configured to connect to an ophthalmic microscope. Juhasz et al. teaches wherein the display screen includes an organic light-emitting diode screen (page 7, line 53), and wherein the digital ocular system is configured to connect to an ophthalmic microscope (page 7, lines 36-38). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply teachings of Juhasz et al. to device of Anderson for purpose of better image display.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al.(US 20220387131 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of You et al. (US 2016/0260413 A1 of record).
Anderson et al. discloses the digital ocular system of claim 1. However, Anderson does not disclose wherein the processor is configured to change the output state of the display screen in response to the electronic sensor signal by dimming the display screen when the user is not within the predetermined standoff distance of the front lens, and then turning off the display screen after a calibrated time limit. You et al. teaches wherein the processor is configured to change the output state of the display screen in response to the electronic sensor signal by dimming the display screen when the user is not within the predetermined standoff distance of the front lens, and then turning off the display screen after a calibrated time limit (it is known in the art that OLEO displays are prone to burn-in problems. Typical measures preventing burn-in include dimming or switching off the display completely when it is not in use; pars. [0048], [0113], [0121] and [0122]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply teachings of You to device of Anderson for purpose of reducing burn-in that may occur in the first display.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al.(US 20220387131 A1) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Carl (DE 202020000635 U1).
Anderson discloses the method of claim 9. However, Anderson does not disclose wherein the proximity sensor includes a pair of proximity sensors, the digital ocular system is configured as digital binoculars in which the eye piece includes a pair of eye pieces, the lens assembly includes a pair of lens assemblies within the pair of eye pieces, and the display screen includes a pair of display screens, and wherein detecting when the user is not within the predetermined standoff distance of the front lens is accomplished using the pair of proximity sensors.
Carl teaches wherein the proximity sensor includes a pair of proximity sensors, the digital ocular system is configured as digital binoculars in which the eye piece includes a pair of eye pieces, the lens assembly includes a pair of lens assemblies within the pair of eye pieces, and the display screen includes a pair of display screens, and wherein detecting when the user is not within the predetermined standoff distance of the front lens is accomplished using the pair of proximity sensors (see Abstract, and par.[0072]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply teachings of Carl to device of Anderson for purpose of forming ocular system.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al.(US 20220387131 A1) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of You et al. (US 2016/0260413 A1 of record).
Anderson et al. discloses the digital ocular system of claim 1. However, Anderson does not disclose wherein the display screen includes an organic light-emitting diode (OLED) screen. You et al. teaches wherein the display screen includes an organic light-emitting diode (OLED) screen (it is known in the art that OLEO displays are prone to burn-in problems. Typical measures preventing burn-in include dimming or switching off the display completely when it is not in use; pars. [0048], [0113], [0121] and [0122]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply teachings of You to device of Anderson for purpose of reducing burn-in that may occur in the first display.
Allowable Subject Matter
1. Claim 16-20 are allowed.
2. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: (claim 13) a combination of an organic light-emitting diode (OLED) display screen positioned within the housing cavity along an optical axis extending between the OLED display screen and the front lens; an infrared proximity sensor connected to the housing, wherein the infrared proximity sensor is configured to detect the user when the user is within a predetermined standoff distance of the front lens, and to output an electronic sensor signal when the user is not positioned within the predetermined standoff distance; and a processor configured to change an output state of the OLED display screen in response to the electronic sensor signal, including turning off the OLED display screen after a calibrated time limit when the user is not within the predetermined standoff distance.
4. Claim 13 is 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.
5. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: (claim 13) wherein the proximity sensor is positioned within the housing adjacent to the display screen, and wherein transmitting an infrared beam toward the user includes transmitting the infrared beam through the front lens.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUYEN TRA whose telephone number is (571)272-2343. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at 571-272-2713. 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.
/TUYEN TRA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights