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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/787,467 filed on July 29, 2024, is presented for examination by the examiner. The amended claims submitted September 1, 2026, in response to the office action mailed June 5, 2026 are under consideration. Claims 1, 3-5, 8-18 and 20 are pending. Claims 2, 6-7 and 19 are cancelled.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Claim Objections
The claim objections of the previous office action have been overcome by the amendments to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The 35 USC §112 rejections of the previous office action have been overcome by the cancellation of claims 6-7 and 19.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wheelwright et al. US 10,768,371 B1 (hereafter Wheelwright) in view of Lee et al. US 2020/0096816 A1 (hereafter Lee), Han et al. US2022/0099974 A1 (hereafter Han), or in the alternative as unpatentable over Wheelwright et al. US 10,768,371 B1 (hereafter Wheelwright) in view of Lee et al. US 2020/0096816 A1 (hereafter Lee), Han et al. US2022/0099974 A1 (hereafter Han) and Ninan et al. WO 2022/031861 (hereafter Ninan).
Regarding claim 1, Wheelwright teaches “A wearable electronic device (HMD 100) comprising:
a display member (see elements thereof below including inset display 210 and peripheral display 220); and…
wherein the display member includes:
a first lens (front side 102 which is a lens in that it is at least partially transparent see col. 3 lines 27-34: “The HMD 100 may be part of an artificial reality system. In embodiments that describe AR system and/or a MR system, portions of a front side 102 of the HMD 100 are at least partially transparent in the visible band (˜380 nm to 750 nm), and portions of the HMD 100 that are between the front side 102 of the HMD 100 and an eye of the user are at least partially transparent (e.g., a partially transparent electronic display).”);
a second lens (birefringent lens 505) configured to transmit… light of a first polarization state (col. 12 lines 9-11: “The birefringent element 505 may be implemented to have a first focal length for a first polarization associated with image light 515”.) and refract light of a second polarization state (col. 12 lines 9-14: “The birefringent element 505 may be implemented to have … a second focal length longer than the first focal length for a second polarization orthogonal to the first polarization associated with image light 520”.);
an optical [display] (inset display 310) disposed between the first lens and the second lens (see Fig. 2, the inset display is between the front side 102 and the optical assembly that include 505) and configured to … emit the light (image light 515) of the first polarization state (col. 12 lines 9-11: “a first polarization associated with image light 515”.) toward the second lens (see Fig. 5); and
a transparent display assembly (peripheral display 315, which is at least partially transparent see col. 3 lines 27-34: “In embodiments that describe AR system and/or a MR system, … portions of the HMD 100 that are between the front side 102 of the HMD 100 and an eye of the user are at least partially transparent (e.g., a partially transparent electronic display).”) including a transparent display (peripheral display 315) disposed between the first lens and the optical waveguide (see Figs. 2 and 5: 315 is between 102 and 310) and configured to output the light of the second polarization state (col. 12 lines 9-14: “a second polarization… associated with image light 520”) toward the second lens (see Fig. 5),
wherein the wearable electronic device is configured to be manually and/or automatically switchable (the wearable device is automatically switchable between the two claimed states, see description of operation thereof in e.g. col. 16 lines 24-40 and col. 17 lines 52-63. See also col. 8 lines 56-59: “The controller 325 is coupled to the inset display 310 and the peripheral display 315, and the controller 325 controls operations of the inset display 310 and the peripheral display 315.” Controlling the operations of the peripheral display includes “deactivating”, i.e. turning it off and “activating” it, i.e. turning it on. Since this is performed by a controller, it is considered to fall under the category of automatically. Since the controller includes user input, this is also under the category of manually. See also the extensive discussion of the operation from col. 15 line 1 to col. 18 line 31.) between a first mode in which the transparent display assembly is deactivated (see Fig. 4A where only the inset display is active) and a second mode in which the transparent display assembly is activated (see Fig. 4B where both the inset display and the peripheral display are active, see also col. 8 lines 56-59: “The controller 325 is coupled to the inset display 310 and the peripheral display 315, and the controller 325 controls operations of the inset display 310 and the peripheral display 315.” Controlling the operations of the peripheral display includes “deactivating”, i.e. turning it off and “activating” it, i.e. turning it on. Since this is performed by a controller, it is considered to fall under the category of automatically. Since the controller includes user input, this is also under the category of manually. See also the extensive discussion of the operation from col. 15 line 1 to col. 18 line 31.), and
wherein, in the second mode, the transparent display assembly is configured to output a second image (see Fig. 4B where both the inset display and the peripheral display are active) to enhance a luminance and/or a dynamic range of a first image…(since light from both displays is incident on the eye-box in an overlapping manner, the luminance of the display is the sum of the luminance of the first and second images, and thus is capable of a higher total luminance than either display alone. Likewise the dynamic range of the overlapping images is enhanced to include brightness or luminance levels up to the sum of the luminance of the first and second images.)”
However, Wheelwright fails to explicitly teach “a light output device including a polarizer…
an optical waveguide… configured to receive light output from the light output device… a first image provided based on the light emitted from the optical waveguide.”
Note however, that Wheelwright does teach (col. 4 lines 26-33): “Examples of the inset display 210 include: a liquid crystal display (LCD), an organic light emitting diode (OLED) display, an inorganic light emitting diode (ILED) display, an active-matrix organic light-emitting diode (AMOLED) display, a transparent organic light emitting diode (TOLED) display, some other display, a projector, or some combination thereof.” (emphasis added).
Han teaches “A wearable electronic device (near-eye display apparatus of Fig. 1) comprising:
a display member (see elements thereof below); and
a light output device (11,12,31 and 32) including a polarizer (first polarization converter 31, a second polarization converter 32),
wherein the display member includes:
a first lens (collimating lenses 21 and 22);
a second lens (super lens 60) configured to transmit light of a first polarization state (paragraph [0084]: “The super lens 60 is… configured to focus the first circularly polarized light at the first focal length” Note that the claim does not recite that “transmit light” must be without refracting the light, and the specification does not explicitly define it as such.) and refract light of a second polarization state (paragraph [0084]: “The super lens 60 … is configured to focus … the second circularly polarized light at the second focal length.”);
an optical waveguide (waveguide plate 40) disposed between the first lens and the second lens (along the light-path 40 is between 21/22 and 60 in Fig. 1) and configured to receive light output from the light output device (e.g. Fig. 1 and paragraph [0068]: “The waveguide plate 40 is located on emission paths of the first collimating lens 21 and the second collimating lens 22”) and emit the light of the first polarization state toward the second lens (see e.g. Fig. 1 and paragraph [0070]: “the waveguide plate 40 includes… a light emitting region… the light emitting region is used for disposing the super lens 60.”); and
… and configured to output the light of the second polarization state toward the second lens (see e.g. Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0056] and [0084] both first and second circularly polarized light is input to the waveguide and transmitted/refracted by the super lens 60),
a first image (e.g. paragraph [0042]: “a first image”) provided based on the light emitted from the optical waveguide (see Fig. 1).”
It is a well-established proposition that the substation of one known element for another which obtains predictable results is within ordinary skill. See MPEP §2143(I)(B). To reject a claim based on this rationale, Office personnel must articulate the following:
(1) a finding that the prior art contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components (step, element, etc.) with other components;
(2) a finding that the substituted components and their functions were known in the art;
(3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable; and
(4) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
In the instant case:
(1) the prior art, Wheelwright, teaches a wearable device which differs from the claimed wearable device by the substitution of the component of polarized projector and waveguide combination display with another component of an transparent light emitting diode display;
(2) the component of a polarized projector and waveguide combination and its function were known in the art in view of Han;
(3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a polarized-projector and waveguide combination display for a transparent light emitting diode display, and the results of the substitution would have predictably been to move the light-source from being in-front of the wearer’s eyes to the side of the device.;
(4) the Graham factual inquiries have been discussed above.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a polarized-projector and waveguide combination display as taught by Han for the light emitting diode display in the device of Wheelwright and the results thereof would have been predictable. Furthermore, Wheelwright teaches (col. 4 lines 26-33): “Examples of the inset display 210 include: … a transparent organic light emitting diode (TOLED) display, some other display, a projector, or some combination thereof.” (emphasis added) which is both a teaching to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform such a substitution and evidence that there would be a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification.
However, Wheelwright fails to teach “a second lens configured to transmit, substantially without refraction, light of a first polarization state and refract light of a second polarization state.”
Lee teaches “A wearable electronic device (Figs. 2B, 2C and 4, see-through type display apparatus 1000) comprising:
a display member (display device 100); and
…a polarizer (300 paragraph [0112]: “The beam splitter 300 is a polarized beam splitter which reflects light of a first polarization and transmits light of a second polarization.” Thus 300 is a polarizer.),
wherein the display member includes:…
a second lens (polarization selection lens 400) configured to transmit, substantially without refraction, light of a first polarization state (Fig. 2C paragraph [0085]: “the refractive power with respect to the light of the second polarization ↕ is very small”) and refract light of a second polarization state (Fig. 2B paragraph [0084]: “the polarization selection lens PSL included in the polarization selection optical system PS applies positive refractive power with respect to the light of the first polarization”);
an optical waveguide (optical waveguide 200) …configured to … emit the light of the first polarization state toward the second lens (see Fig. 4 where both L1 and L2 are emitted from 200 toward polarization selection lens 400); and
… configured to output the light of the second polarization state toward the second lens (see Fig. 4 where both L1 and L2 are emitted from 200 toward polarization selection lens 400).”
Lee further teaches (paragraph [0179]): “The polarization selection optical system 1400 applies different refractive powers with respect to the light of the first polarization and the light of the second polarization, that is, may focus the first image in the first polarization and transmit the second image in the second polarization without refraction operation. The polarization selection optical system 1400 may adopt the polarization selection lens 400 having the different refraction operations with respect to two linear polarizations that are perpendicular to each other, or the polarization selection lens 410 having different refraction operations with respect to two circular polarizations in opposite directions and the quarter-wave plate 420.”
Thus Lee discloses both a polarization selection lens that only refracts one polarization and transmits the other, as is now claimed, as well as a polarization selection lens, that like Wheelwright, adopts different refraction operations with respect to two orthogonal polarizations.
Wheelwright discloses the claimed invention except that a polarization selection lens that has refractive power for both of two orthogonal polarizations is used instead of a second lens that only refracts one polarization and transmits the orthogonal polarization substantially without refraction. Lee shows that a polarization selection lens that only refracts one polarization and transmits the orthogonal polarization substantially without refraction is an equivalent structure in the art (see paragraphs [0084]-[0085] and [0179]). Therefore, because these two polarization selection lenses were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute a polarization selection lens that only refracts one polarization of light for a polarization selection lens that has differing refractive powers for two orthogonal polarizations, and the results thereof would have been predictable. See MPEP §2144.06 and 2143 (I)(B).
In the above, it was explained why and how the device of Wheelwright inherently meets the newly claimed functional limitations “wherein, in the second mode, the transparent display assembly is configured to output a second image to enhance a luminance and/or a dynamic range of a first image.” However, in the alternative, if this function were not inherent to Wheelwright, it would also have been obvious as follows.
Ninan teaches “A wearable electronic device (Figs. 1A and 3A that include a wearable device image display) comprising:
a display member (external image display 304); and…
a transparent display assembly (device image display 316 that is a transparent display assembly in that it includes optical configuration 302 that is in front of the eye) including a transparent display (302) …
wherein the wearable electronic device is configured to be manually and/or automatically switchable (e.g. paragraph [0162]: “[0162] Color and dynamic range enhancement may be achieved by the display manager (314) in conjunction with a dynamic range controller, the display calibrator (310), etc., by performing some or all of a number of color management operations, dynamic range control or management operations, etc.” thus the device is automatically switchable between any and all desired states) … and wherein, in the second mode, the transparent display assembly is configured to output a second image to enhance a luminance and/or a dynamic range of a first image (e.g. paragraph [0163]: “additional more luminance light may be directed by the device image display (316) to one or more corresponding regions 320 (or image portions) in the optical configuration (302) of the computing device (308) to be combined with the external display light from the one or more selected regions (318) of the external image display (304) and to achieve a higher dynamic range in the one or more corresponding regions (320).”).”
Ninan further teaches (paragraphs [0162]-[0164]): “Color and dynamic range enhancement may be achieved by the display manager (314) in conjunction with a dynamic range controller, the display calibrator (310), etc., by performing some or all of a number of color management operations, dynamic range control or management operations, etc.”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to operate the two displays of Wheelwright such that the second image can be used to enhance the dynamic range of the first image as taught by Ninan, because Ninan teaches that color and dynamic range enhancement may be achieved by the display manager in conjunction with a dynamic range controller, the display calibrator, etc., by performing some or all of a number of color management operations, dynamic range control or management operations (Ninan paragraph [0162]).
Regarding claim 3, the Wheelwright combination teaches “The wearable electronic device of claim 1,” and Wheelwright further teaches “further comprising at least one processor (see Fig. 6 console 610 includes application store 655 and col. 17 lines 9-11 discloses “The application store 655 stores one or more applications for execution by the console 610. An application is a group of instructions, that when executed by a processor,”) comprising processing circuitry (the console processes data and thus comprises processing circuitry, see e.g. col. 13 lines 39-41: “the DCA 620 can send this information to another device such as the console 610 that can determine the depth information using the data from the DCA 620.”), and
memory (col. 17 lines 9-11 discloses “The application store 655 stores one or more applications for execution by the console 610” thus 610 includes memory storing applications.),
wherein the memory stores instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor individually and/or collectively (col. 17 lines 9-11 discloses “The application store 655 stores one or more applications for execution by the console 610”), cause the wearable device to switch the wearable electronic device from the first mode to the second mode based on information about a first image based on the light emitted from the optical waveguide (col. 16 lines 24-40: “The varifocal module 650 may be also configured to adjust resolution of the images displayed on the inset display 625 and/or the peripheral display 627 by performing foveated rendering of the displayed images, based at least in part on the determined eye tracking information obtained from the eye tracking system 645. In this case, the varifocal module 650 provides appropriate image signals to the inset display 625 and/or the peripheral display 627. The varifocal module 650 provides image signals with a maximum pixel density for the inset display 625 only in a foveal region of the user's eye-gaze, while providing image signals with lower pixel densities in other regions of the inset display 625 and/or regions of the peripheral display 627. In one embodiment, the varifocal module 650 may utilize the depth information obtained by the DCA 620 to, e.g., generate content for presentation on the inset display 625 and/or the peripheral display 627.” and col. 17 lines 52-63: “The engine 665 generates a 3D mapping of the area surrounding some or all of the HMD 605 (i.e., the “local area”) based on information received from the HMD 605. In some embodiments, the engine 665 determines depth information for the 3D mapping of the local area based on information received from the DCA 620 that is relevant for techniques used in computing depth. The engine 665 may calculate depth information using one or more techniques in computing depth from structured light. In various embodiments, the engine 665 uses the depth information to, e.g., update a model of the local area, and generate content based in part on the updated model.” Thus the activation of the peripheral display (corresponding to the transparent display of the claims) for the first and second modes is based in part on the images determined by the controller modules that is to be displayed appropriately for the inset display (corresponding to the waveguide of the claims). In other words when the information gathered about environment of the HMD, and the gaze of the wearer is such that when a field of view of only -10 degrees to +10 degrees is needed, only the inset display is activated (first mode) and when a wider field of view is appropriate both of the displays are activated (second mode).).”
Regarding claim 4, the Wheelwright combination teaches “The wearable electronic device of claim 1,” and Wheelwright further teaches “wherein the display member is configured to provide an image (Fig. 5 the image of image light 525) in which a first image (the image of image light 515) based on the light emitted from the optical waveguide (in the combination introduced for claim 1 above inset display 310 was modified to be a waveguide) and a second image (the image of image light 520) based on light emitted from the transparent display (from peripheral display 315) overlap each other (see Fig. 5 and e.g. col. 4 line 66 to col. 5 line 2: “The optical assembly 230 receives image light from the inset display 210 and the peripheral display 220, combines (multiplexes) the received image light and directs the combined image light to the eye-box 235 of the user's eye 240.”).”
Regarding claim 5, The Wheelwright combination teaches “The wearable electronic device of claim 1,” and Wheelwright further teaches “wherein the optical waveguide is transparent (e.g. col. 3 lines 31-34: “portions of the HMD 100 that are between the front side 102 of the HMD 100 and an eye of the user are at least partially transparent (e.g., a partially transparent electronic display).”), and
wherein light received through the first lens from an outside of the wearable electronic device (col. 3 lines 27-31: “a MR system, portions of a front side 102 of the HMD 100 are at least partially transparent in the visible band (˜380 nm to 750 nm),”) and light output from the transparent display assembly (image light 520) are configured to be incident on the second lens (light from 520 and from 102 reaching the eyebox are first incident on 505).”
However, Wheelwright fails to explicitly teach “without being incident to an input end of the optical waveguide.”
Han teaches “wherein the optical waveguide is transparent (e.g. paragraph [0112]: “ambient light can directly pass through the waveguide plate and the super lens to enter the human eyes”), and
wherein light received… from an outside of the wearable electronic device (e.g. paragraph [0112]: “ambient light”)… configured to be incident on the second lens (e.g. paragraph [0112]: “ambient light can directly pass through… the super lens”) without being incident to an input end of the optical waveguide (see Fig. 1 and paragraph [0070] the light incident region of waveguide 40 is outside of the field of view of the eyes of the wearer. Thus all ambient light and image light seen by the wearer passes through superlens 60 without passing through the light incident region of waveguide 40).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention when modifying Wheelwright in view of Han to utilize a polarized-projector and waveguide combination display as taught by Han as the inset display of Wheelwright to position the light incident region of the waveguide outside of the field of view of the wearer and thus in a region where the ambient light and image light are not incident as taught by Han. One would have been motivated to implement this aspect of the polarized-projector and waveguide combination display of Han so that the projection optics do not interfere with the ambient or displayed images as shown in Fig. 1 of Han.
Regarding claim 8, the Wheelwright combination teaches “The wearable electronic device of claim 1,” and Wheelwright further teaches “wherein the transparent display assembly comprises: a transparent display (col. 4 lines 30-31: “transparent organic light emitting diode (TOLED) display” col. 4 lines 54-56: “Examples of the peripheral display 220 include… a TOLED display,”); and
a polarizer (col. 4 lines 58-62: “The peripheral display 220 may also include… a polarizer… a polarizing reflective surface, or any other suitable optical element that affects the image light emitted from the electronic display.” and col. 9 lines 8-13: “Alternatively, the peripheral display 315 includes a display surface and a circular polarizer (not shown in FIG. 4), and the display surface is configured to emit image light, and the circular polarizer polarizes the image light to form the image light 410 of the second polarization”.) disposed on a surface of the transparent display facing the first lens or a surface of the transparent display facing the second lens (Since the polarizer or polarizing reflective surface is part of the display, then it is on “a surface” of the display. For a polarizer to affect the image light emitted from the electronic display it must be on the surface of the display facing the second lens in the sense of being closer to the second lens than the TOLED. For a polarizing reflecting surface to affect the image light emitted from the electronic display, it could be on either major surface of the TOLED facing the first lens or facing the second lens).”
Regarding claim 9, the Wheelwright combination teaches “The wearable electronic device of claim 1,” and Wheelwright further teaches “wherein the transparent display assembly comprises a transparent display (col. 4 lines 30-31: “transparent organic light emitting diode (TOLED) display” col. 4 lines 54-56: “Examples of the peripheral display 220 include… a TOLED display,” and col. 9 lines 6-8: “In one embodiment, the peripheral display 315 directly emits the image light 410 as circularly polarized light”.) configured to output the light of the second polarization state (col. 12 lines 17-18: “image light 520 of the second polarization emitted from the peripheral display 315”).”
Regarding claim 10, the Wheelwright combination teaches “The wearable electronic device of claim 1,” and Wheelwright further teaches “wherein the first lens is disposed and configured to receive light from an outside of the wearable electronic device (col. 3 lines 26-31: “The HMD 100 may be part of an artificial reality system. In embodiments that describe AR system and/or a MR system, portions of a front side 102 of the HMD 100 are at least partially transparent in the visible band (˜380 nm to 750 nm)”. Given the position shown in Figs. 1 and 2 and the function as a transparent window in a mixed reality system, 102 is disposed and configured to receive light from outside of the wearable device), and the second lens is disposed to face a user's eye (see Fig. 5, 505 is disposed to face the eyebox where the eye is positioned in Fig. 2).”
Regarding claim 11, the Wheelwright combination teaches “The wearable electronic device of claim 1,” and Wheelwright further teaches “wherein the display member includes a first surface facing an outside of the wearable electronic device (in Figs. 1 and 2 the outside surface of 102) and a second surface facing in a direction opposite to the first surface (in Fig. 5 the surface of 505 closest to the eyebox).”
Regarding claim 12, the Wheelwright combination teaches “The wearable electronic device of claim 11,” and Wheelwright further teaches “wherein the first lens is closer to the first surface of the display member than to the second surface of the display member (102 is closer to its own outside surface than it is to the surface of 505 proximate to the eyebox), and the second lens is closer to the second surface of the display member than to the first surface of the display member (505 is closer to its own surface proximate to the eyebox than it is to the outer surface of 102).”
Claims 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wheelwright et al. US 10,768,371 B1 (hereafter Wheelwright) in view of Han et al. US2022/0099974 A1 (hereafter Han), or in the alternative as unpatentable over Wheelwright et al. US 10,768,371 B1 (hereafter Wheelwright) in view of Han et al. US2022/0099974 A1 (hereafter Han) and Ninan et al. WO 2022/031861 (hereafter Ninan).
Regarding claim 16, Wheelwright teaches “A wearable electronic device (HMD 100) comprising:
a display member (see elements thereof below including inset display 210 and peripheral display 220); and
…wherein the display member includes:
a first lens (front side 102 which is a lens in that it is at least partially transparent see col. 3 lines 27-34: “The HMD 100 may be part of an artificial reality system. In embodiments that describe AR system and/or a MR system, portions of a front side 102 of the HMD 100 are at least partially transparent in the visible band (˜380 nm to 750 nm), and portions of the HMD 100 that are between the front side 102 of the HMD 100 and an eye of the user are at least partially transparent (e.g., a partially transparent electronic display).”);
a second lens (birefringent lens 505);
an optical [display] (inset display 310) disposed between the first lens and the second lens (see Fig. 2, the inset display is between the front side 102 and the optical assembly that include 505) and configured to… emit the light (image light 515) of the first polarization state (col. 12 lines 9-11: “a first polarization associated with image light 515”.) toward the second lens (see Fig. 5); and
a transparent display assembly (peripheral display 315, which is at least partially transparent see col. 3 lines 27-34: “In embodiments that describe AR system and/or a MR system, … portions of the HMD 100 that are between the front side 102 of the HMD 100 and an eye of the user are at least partially transparent (e.g., a partially transparent electronic display).”) including a transparent display (peripheral display 315) disposed between the first lens and the optical waveguide (see Figs. 2 and 5: 315 is between 102 and 310) and configured to output light (col. 12 lines 9-14: “a second polarization… associated with image light 520”) toward the second lens (see Fig. 5), and
wherein the wearable electronic device is configured to be manually and/or automatically switchable (see e.g. col. 8 lines 56-59: “The controller 325 is coupled to the inset display 310 and the peripheral display 315, and the controller 325 controls operations of the inset display 310 and the peripheral display 315.” Controlling the operations of the peripheral display includes “deactivating”, i.e. turning it off and “activating” it, i.e. turning it on. Since this is performed by a controller, it is considered to fall under the category of automatically. Since the controller includes user input, this is also under the category of manually. See also the extensive discussion of the operation from col. 15 line 1 to col. 18 line 31.) between a first mode in which the transparent display assembly is deactivated (see Fig. 4A where only the inset display is active) and a second mode in which the transparent display assembly is activated (see Fig. 4B where both the inset display and the peripheral display are active, see also col. 8 lines 56-59: “The controller 325 is coupled to the inset display 310 and the peripheral display 315, and the controller 325 controls operations of the inset display 310 and the peripheral display 315.” Controlling the operations of the peripheral display includes “deactivating”, i.e. turning it off and “activating” it, i.e. turning it on. Since this is performed by a controller, it is considered to fall under the category of automatically. Since the controller includes user input, this is also under the category of manually. See also the extensive discussion of the operation from col. 15 line 1 to col. 18 line 31.), and
wherein, in the second mode, the transparent display assembly is configured to output a second image (see Fig. 4B where both the inset display and the peripheral display are active) to enhance a luminance and/or a dynamic range of a first image (since light from both displays is incident on the eye-box in an overlapping manner, the luminance of the display is the sum of the luminance of the first and second images, and thus is capable of a higher total luminance than either display alone. Likewise the dynamic range of the overlapping images is enhanced to include brightness or luminance levels up to the sum of the luminance of the first and second images.).”
However, Wheelwright fails to explicitly teach “a light output device including a polarizer…
an optical waveguide… configured to receive light output from the light output device… a first image provided based on the light emitted from the optical waveguide.”
Note however, that Wheelwright does teach (col. 4 lines 26-33): “Examples of the inset display 210 include: a liquid crystal display (LCD), an organic light emitting diode (OLED) display, an inorganic light emitting diode (ILED) display, an active-matrix organic light-emitting diode (AMOLED) display, a transparent organic light emitting diode (TOLED) display, some other display, a projector, or some combination thereof.” (emphasis added).
Han teaches “A wearable electronic device (near-eye display apparatus of Fig. 1) comprising:
a display member (see elements thereof below); and
a light output device (11,12,31 and 32) including a polarizer (first polarization converter 31, a second polarization converter 32),
wherein the display member includes:
a first lens (collimating lenses 21 and 22);
a second lens (super lens 60);
an optical waveguide (waveguide plate 40) disposed between the first lens and the second lens (along the light-path 40 is between 21/22 and 60 in Fig. 1) and configured to receive light output from the light output device (e.g. Fig. 1 and paragraph [0068]: “The waveguide plate 40 is located on emission paths of the first collimating lens 21 and the second collimating lens 22”) and emit the light of the first polarization state toward the second lens (see e.g. Fig. 1 and paragraph [0070]: “the waveguide plate 40 includes… a light emitting region… the light emitting region is used for disposing the super lens 60.”)…
a first image (e.g. paragraph [0042]: “a first image”) provided based on the light emitted from the optical waveguide (see Fig. 1).”
It is a well-established proposition that the substation of one known element for another which obtains predictable results is within ordinary skill. See MPEP §2143(I)(B). To reject a claim based on this rationale, Office personnel must articulate the following:
(1) a finding that the prior art contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components (step, element, etc.) with other components;
(2) a finding that the substituted components and their functions were known in the art;
(3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable; and
(4) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
In the instant case:
(1) the prior art, Wheelwright, teaches a wearable device which differs from the claimed wearable device by the substitution of the component of polarized projector and waveguide combination display with another component of an transparent light emitting diode display;
(2) the component of a polarized projector and waveguide combination and its function were known in the art in view of Han;
(3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a polarized-projector and waveguide combination display for a transparent light emitting diode display, and the results of the substitution would have predictably been to move the light-source from being in-front of the wearer’s eyes to the side of the device.;
(4) the Graham factual inquiries have been discussed above.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a polarized-projector and waveguide combination display as taught by Han for the light emitting diode display in the device of Wheelwright and the results thereof would have been predictable. Furthermore, Wheelwright teaches (col. 4 lines 26-33): “Examples of the inset display 210 include: … a transparent organic light emitting diode (TOLED) display, some other display, a projector, or some combination thereof.” (emphasis added) which is both a teaching to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform such a substitution and evidence that there would be a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification.
In the above, it was explained why and how the device of Wheelwright inherently meets the newly claimed functional limitations “wherein, in the second mode, the transparent display assembly is configured to output a second image to enhance a luminance and/or a dynamic range of a first image.” However, in the alternative, if this function were not inherent to Wheelwright, it would also have been obvious as follows.
Ninan teaches “A wearable electronic device (Figs. 1A and 3A that include a wearable device image display) comprising:
a display member (external image display 304); and…
a transparent display assembly (device image display 316 that is a transparent display assembly in that it includes optical configuration 302 that is in front of the eye) including a transparent display (302) …
wherein the wearable electronic device is configured to be manually and/or automatically switchable (e.g. paragraph [0162]: “[0162] Color and dynamic range enhancement may be achieved by the display manager (314) in conjunction with a dynamic range controller, the display calibrator (310), etc., by performing some or all of a number of color management operations, dynamic range control or management operations, etc.” thus the device is automatically switchable between any and all desired states) … and wherein, in the second mode, the transparent display assembly is configured to output a second image to enhance a luminance and/or a dynamic range of a first image (e.g. paragraph [0163]: “additional more luminance light may be directed by the device image display (316) to one or more corresponding regions 320 (or image portions) in the optical configuration (302) of the computing device (308) to be combined with the external display light from the one or more selected regions (318) of the external image display (304) and to achieve a higher dynamic range in the one or more corresponding regions (320).”).”
Ninan further teaches (paragraphs [0162]-[0164]): “Color and dynamic range enhancement may be achieved by the display manager (314) in conjunction with a dynamic range controller, the display calibrator (310), etc., by performing some or all of a number of color management operations, dynamic range control or management operations, etc.”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to operate the two displays of Wheelwright such that the second image can be used to enhance the dynamic range of the first image as taught by Ninan, because Ninan teaches that color and dynamic range enhancement may be achieved by the display manager in conjunction with a dynamic range controller, the display calibrator, etc., by performing some or all of a number of color management operations, dynamic range control or management operations (Ninan paragraph [0162]).
Regarding claim 17, the Wheelwright combination teaches “The wearable electronic device of claim 16,” and Wheelwright further teaches “wherein the second lens is configured to transmit light of a first polarization state (col. 12 lines 9-11: “The birefringent element 505 may be implemented to have a first focal length for a first polarization associated with image light 515”. Note that the claim does not recite that “transmit light” must be without refracting the light, and the specification does not explicitly define it as such.) and refract light of a second polarization state (col. 12 lines 9-14: “The birefringent element 505 may be implemented to have … a second focal length longer than the first focal length for a second polarization orthogonal to the first polarization associated with image light 520”.).”
Regarding claim 18, the Wheelwright combination teaches “The wearable electronic device of claim 17,” and Wheelwright further teaches “wherein the optical waveguide is configured to emit the light of the first polarization state (col. 12 lines 16-17: “image light 515 of the first polarization emitted from the inset display 310”) toward the second lens (see Fig. 5 515 is emitted towards 505), and
wherein the transparent display assembly is configured to output the light of the second polarization state (col. 12 lines 17-18: “the image light 520 of the second polarization emitted from the peripheral display 315”) toward the second lens (see Fig. 5 520 is emitted towards 505).”
Regarding claim 20, the Wheelwright combination teaches “The wearable electronic device of claim 16,” and Wheelwright further teaches “further comprising at least one processor (see Fig. 6 console 610 includes application store 655 and col. 17 lines 9-11 discloses “The application store 655 stores one or more applications for execution by the console 610. An application is a group of instructions, that when executed by a processor,”), and
memory (col. 17 lines 9-11 discloses “The application store 655 stores one or more applications for execution by the console 610” thus 610 includes memory storing applications.),
wherein the memory stores instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor individually and/or collectively (col. 17 lines 9-11 discloses “The application store 655 stores one or more applications for execution by the console 610”), cause the wearable device to switch the wearable electronic device from the first mode to the second mode based on information about a first image based on the light emitted from the optical waveguide (col. 16 lines 24-40: “The varifocal module 650 may be also configured to adjust resolution of the images displayed on the inset display 625 and/or the peripheral display 627 by performing foveated rendering of the displayed images, based at least in part on the determined eye tracking information obtained from the eye tracking system 645. In this case, the varifocal module 650 provides appropriate image signals to the inset display 625 and/or the peripheral display 627. The varifocal module 650 provides image signals with a maximum pixel density for the inset display 625 only in a foveal region of the user's eye-gaze, while providing image signals with lower pixel densities in other regions of the inset display 625 and/or regions of the peripheral display 627. In one embodiment, the varifocal module 650 may utilize the depth information obtained by the DCA 620 to, e.g., generate content for presentation on the inset display 625 and/or the peripheral display 627.” and col. 17 lines 52-63: “The engine 665 generates a 3D mapping of the area surrounding some or all of the HMD 605 (i.e., the “local area”) based on information received from the HMD 605. In some embodiments, the engine 665 determines depth information for the 3D mapping of the local area based on information received from the DCA 620 that is relevant for techniques used in computing depth. The engine 665 may calculate depth information using one or more techniques in computing depth from structured light. In various embodiments, the engine 665 uses the depth information to, e.g., update a model of the local area, and generate content based in part on the updated model.” Thus the activation of the peripheral display (corresponding to the transparent display of the claims) for the first and second modes is based in part on the images determined by the controller modules that is to be displayed appropriately for the inset display (corresponding to the waveguide of the claims). In other words when the information gathered about environment of the HMD, and the gaze of the wearer is such that when a field of view of only -10 degrees to +10 degrees is needed, only the inset display is activated (first mode) and when a wider field of view is appropriate both of the displays are activated (second mode).).”
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wheelwright et al. US 10,768,371 B1 (hereafter Wheelwright) in view of Lee et al. US 2020/0096816 A1 (hereafter Lee), Han et al. US2022/0099974 A1 (hereafter Han), or in the alternative as unpatentable over Wheelwright et al. US 10,768,371 B1 (hereafter Wheelwright) in view of Lee et al. US 2020/0096816 A1 (hereafter Lee), Han et al. US2022/0099974 A1 (hereafter Han) and Ninan et al. WO 2022/031861 (hereafter Ninan) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Vallius US 2017/0184848 A1 (hereafter Vallius).
Regarding claim 13, the Wheelwright combination teaches “The wearable electronic device of claim 1,” and Wheelwright further teaches “wherein the wearable electronic device is configured to transmit at least a portion of light received from an outside of the wearable electronic device through the first lens (col. 3 lines 29-31: “a MR system, portions of a front side 102 of the HMD 100 are at least partially transparent in the visible band (˜380 nm to 750 nm),”)… and emitted toward the second lens (see Fig. 5, ambient light form outside of the HMD is emitted towards 505.).”
However, Wheelwright fails to explicitly teach “at least a portion of light received from an outside of the wearable electronic device… is polarized into the second polarization state by the transparent display assembly”.
Vallius teaches “wherein the wearable electronic device is configured to transmit at least a portion of light received from an outside of the wearable electronic device … and is polarized into the second polarization state by the transparent display assembly (paragraphs [0035]-[0036]: “the polarizing filter 715 is linearly polarizing so that unpolarized light 705 impinging on the optical display system from the external real world (e.g., from real-world objects 720) enters the system as TM-polarized light, as indicated by arrow 725… The filter 715 can also be configured to impose circular polarization (e.g., left- or right-hand circular polarization) in some cases… As the out-coupled virtual images have a TE-polarization state, they can be acted upon by the tunable LC lens 718 to impart variable focus. However, the tunable LC lens is configured for sensitivity to TE-polarized light therefore it does not affect the focus of TM-polarized light from the real world.” Thus 715 polarizes the ambient light to a state orthogonal to the polarization of the display light, and thus in the second polarization as claimed.) and emitted toward the second lens (see Fig. 7, ambient light is emitted towards tunable LC lens 718).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate into the wearable device of the Wheelwright – Han combination a polarizing filter exterior to the transparent display as taught by Vallius that can control the polarization of the ambient light to be the opposite polarization from the virtual image light as taught by Vallius, in order to control the manner in which the ambient light interacts with the polarization selective lens as taught by Vallius (paragraph [0036]). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because Wheelwright is silent regarding the details of how the system interacts with ambient light in the mixed-reality embodiment.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wheelwright et al. US 10,768,371 B1 (hereafter Wheelwright) in view of Lee et al. US 2020/0096816 A1 (hereafter Lee), Han et al. US2022/0099974 A1 (hereafter Han), or in the alternative as unpatentable over Wheelwright et al. US 10,768,371 B1 (hereafter Wheelwright) in view of Lee et al. US 2020/0096816 A1 (hereafter Lee), Han et al. US2022/0099974 A1 (hereafter Han) and Ninan et al. WO 2022/031861 (hereafter Ninan) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Lee et al. US 2021/0389591 A1 (hereafter Lee 2021).
Regarding claim 14, the Wheelwright combination teaches “The wearable electronic device of claim 1,” and Wheelwright further teaches “wherein the second lens is configured to selectively have positive refractive power for the light of the second polarization state (col. 12 lines 9-13: “The birefringent element 505 may be implemented to have a first focal length for a first polarization associated with image light 515, and a second focal length longer than the first focal length for a second polarization”. Thus the refractive power for light of the second polarization is selective in that it is different from the refractive power applied to the first polarization. That this is a positive refractive power can be seen in Fig. 5 where diverging light 515 emitted from 310 is refracted into collimated light by 505. Moreover the power is being chosen to match the vergence of the ambient light which would include needing the image light 515 to become collimated to match a scene viewed at “infinity”).”
However, Wheelwright is silent regarding “wherein the first lens has negative refractive power.”
Lee 2021 teaches (claim 1): “A wearable electronic device (AR device of Fig. 12) comprising:
a display member (see elements thereof below including waveguide 120); and
a light output device (optical engine 110)…
wherein the display member includes:
a first lens (second fixed refractive lens 543);
a second lens (focus-tunable lens 131) configured to transmit light of a first polarization state and refract light of a second polarization state (e.g. paragraph [0145]: “A refractive index of the LC lens may vary with the first polarized light (e.g., the p polarized light) and the second polarized light (e.g., s polarized light)”. Thus 131 is configured such that both polarizations can be transmitted therethrough, and both would be refracted.);
an optical waveguide (waveguide 120) disposed between the first lens and the second lens (see Fig. 12 120 is between 543 and 131) and configured to receive light output from the light output device (see Fig. 3) and emit the light … toward the second lens (see Fig. 5).”
(claim 14) “wherein the first lens has negative refractive power (paragraph [0103]: “the fixed refractive lens 133 may be a concave lens having a negative (−) refractive power. In the embodiment, the fixed refractive lens 133 is a concave lens, for example, but embodiments are not limited thereto. … the fixed refractive lens 133 may be a convex lens having a positive (+) refractive power.” paragraph [0148]-[0149]: “In the embodiment, the second fixed refractive lens 543 is a convex lens, for example, but embodiments are not limited thereto…. A refractive power D′.sub.2 the second lens part 540 has to have to compensate for distortion of the real scene, caused by the first lens part 130.” Thus in the case that 131 is positive, 543 will be negative), and
wherein the second lens is configured to selectively have … refractive power (focus tunable lens 131, thus the power of 131 is selectable).”
Lee 2021 further teaches (paragraph [0149]: “A refractive power D′.sub.2 the second lens part 540 has to have to compensate for distortion of the real scene, caused by the first lens part 130”.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the refractive power of the outermost lens of Wheelwright (102) to be negative as taught by Lee so that the distortion of the real scene by the second lens can be compensated for as taught by Lee (paragraph [0149]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wheelwright et al. US 10,768,371 B1 (hereafter Wheelwright) in view of Lee et al. US 2020/0096816 A1 (hereafter Lee), Han et al. US2022/0099974 A1 (hereafter Han), or in the alternative as unpatentable over Wheelwright et al. US 10,768,371 B1 (hereafter Wheelwright) in view of Lee et al. US 2020/0096816 A1 (hereafter Lee), Han et al. US2022/0099974 A1 (hereafter Han) and Ninan et al. WO 2022/031861 (hereafter Ninan) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Ronzani et al. US 2002/0163486 A1 (hereafter Ronzani).
Regarding claim 15, the Wheelwright combination teaches “The wearable electronic device of claim 1,” however, Wheelwright fails to teach “wherein the transparent display assembly comprises a foldable or rollable transparent display.”
Ronzani teaches (abstract) “A head-mounted display system displays information via a matrix display element mounted within a housing that is positioned relative to at least eye of a user. The display is connected to a video or information source such that the user can view information or images shown on the display. The display can be mounted to a frame so that the user can move the display in and out of the user's field of view without adjusting the supporting harness that holds the display on the user's head.”
(paragraph [0011]): “The direct view display can be a transmission type display with the light source directly adjacent the light valve active matrix and mounted within the display device. The transmission type display can, in a preferred embodiment, also receive light directly from the user's environment so that the display overlays an image over the users existing field of view.”
Ronzani teaches multiple embodiments wherein the user can move the display in and out of the user's field of view.
For example Ronzani (Figs. 59A-59F) teaches “wherein the transparent display assembly (collapsible display pod 1500) comprises a foldable or rollable transparent display (mirror 1525 and viewing lens 1560 are foldable, see positions in Figs. 59B-59D and paragraphs [0230]-[233]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the transparent display assembly of Wheelwright be foldable as taught by Ronzani for the purpose of enabling the user to move the display into and out of the user’s field of view while still wearing the head-mounted system as taught by Ronzani (abstract and paragraphs [0229]-[0234]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 1, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
From page 8 of 13 through line 3 of page 9 of 13 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant notes that claim 1 was rejected under Section 103 over Wheelwright in view of Han and then reproduces the entirety of amended claim 1, emphasizes the two new final paragraphs thereof. No specific argument is made on this page.
In section A on pages 9 to 10 of 13 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that neither Wheelwright nor Han teaches “a second lens configured to transmit, substantially without refraction, light of a first polarization state and refract light of a second polarization state”. These argument have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In the first paragraph of section B on pages 10 to 11 of 13 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant notes the additional limitations newly added to claim 1 that were not previously presented in original claim 2, namely “the transparent display assembly is configured to output a second image to enhance a luminance and/or a dynamic range of a first image provided based on the light emitted from the optical waveguide” and points to where support for this limitation can be found in the specification as filed. The examiner agrees, this new limitation is supported by the specification as filed. No specific argument with respect to the prior art is made in this paragraph.
In the first full paragraph of page 11 of 13 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that although Wheelwright teaches two overlapping images, one having a narrow field of view corresponding to the fovea and the other which spans a second, wider FOV, that Wheelwright combines these two displays for a different purpose, namely to extend the spatial field of view. The applicant concludes “Wheelwright thus combines the two displays to extend the spatial field of view, not to enhance the luminance or dynamic range of a common image.” This argument is not persuasive for at least the following reasons.
Firstly, the elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP § 2131. In the current instance “the transparent display assembly is configured to output a second image to enhance a luminance and/or a dynamic range of a first image provided based on the light emitted from the optical waveguide” is a functional limitation, that the wearable electronic device has to be configured such that the function is obtained. Thus, the lack of specific language describing this functionality in Wheelwright is not required.
Secondly, as explained in the rejections above, this property is inherent to a configuration where two displays are providing overlapping images. In particular, since light from both displays is incident on the eye-box in an overlapping manner, the luminance of the display is the sum of the luminance of the first and second images, and thus is capable of a higher total luminance than either display alone. Likewise the dynamic range of the overlapping images is enhanced to include brightness or luminance levels up to the sum of the luminance of the first and second images. The aspect that the first image is provided based on light emitted from the optical waveguide is obvious over the teachings of Han.
Thirdly, the applicant has not provided any argument or explanation of how such a function is not an inherent feature in Wheelwright, rather merely arguing that Wheelwright fails to mention this advantage.
Fourthly, the above rejection is additionally made in the alternative further over Ninan. As noted above, Ninan teaches “wherein, in the second mode, the transparent display assembly is configured to output a second image to enhance a luminance and/or a dynamic range of a first image (e.g. paragraph [0163]: “additional more luminance light may be directed by the device image display (316) to one or more corresponding regions 320 (or image portions) in the optical configuration (302) of the computing device (308) to be combined with the external display light from the one or more selected regions (318) of the external image display (304) and to achieve a higher dynamic range in the one or more corresponding regions (320).”).”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to operate the two displays of Wheelwright such that the second image can be used to enhance the dynamic range of the first image as taught by Ninan, because Ninan teaches that color and dynamic range enhancement may be achieved by the display manager in conjunction with a dynamic range controller, the display calibrator, etc., by performing some or all of a number of color management operations, dynamic range control or management operations (Ninan paragraph [0162]).
In the second full paragraph of page 11 of 13 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that Han is likewise silent as to enhancing luminance or dynamic range. The examiner disagrees for similar reasons as those with respect to Wheelwright, however, this argument is moot, since Han is not relied upon for teaching this feature.
In the paragraph spanning pages 11 to 12 of 13 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that none of Vallius, Lee or Ronzani disclose the newly presented limitation. These arguments are moot, since none of these references are relied upon for teaching this feature.
In the first full paragraph of page 12 of 13 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that each of the prior art references previously applied address a different technical problem than the specific purpose now recited in claim 1, and submits that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine the cited references to arrive at this limitation. The arguments with respect to the individual references have been addressed above. To summarize, Wheelwright inherently meets this limitation since the two images displayed overlap one another, and therefore create a combined luminance brighter than either display individually would be capable of. Alternatively, even if this is not inherent to Wheelwright, it would still have been obvious over the newly introduced reference, Ninan.
Under the heading C on page 12 of 13 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that claim 16 is allowable for the reasons presented in section B. These reasons have been addressed above. The applicant also argues that dependent claims 3-5, 8-15, 17-18 and 20 are allowable at least by virtue of their dependence from claims 1 or 16. The arguments with respect to claims 1 and 16 have been addressed above.
No further arguments are made after section C.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Woodgate et al. US 2025/0164798 A1 “Anamorphic Near-Eye Display Device”. Fig. 5A has a waveguide based display 48A and a transparent display 48B. Figs. 13A and 13B incorporate a Pancharatnam-Berry lens 386. Paragraph [0254] discloses “A very high brightness image 31 and high resolution image may be provided. Such a combined image 31 may be provided with high dynamic range (HDR, with high contrast and high luminance) and high resolution.” Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome future rejections over Woodgate because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARA E RAKOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-4206. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-4PM ET M-F.
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 L 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.
/CARA E RAKOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights