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 .
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(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eadie et al. (US 20230218159).
Regarding claim 1, Eadie discloses A head-mounted device, comprising: a support structure (“[0121] wherein the Visual Test Unit comprises: a Head Mounted Unit having: a Shell for providing a housing for electrical and optical components of the Head Mounted Unit, the Shell being worn on the head of the patient”); a display coupled to the support structure and configured to display an image (“[0137] wherein the apparatus comprises: a Test Display for generating visual stimuli that are presented to an eye of the patient during the visual field testing. [0303] The Test Display 804 is disposed above the Lens Stack Housing 802”);
a lens through which the display is visible from an eye box, wherein the display and the lens are separated by a distance that imparts a spherical correction to the image (“[0244] an optical system is provided for generating light stimuli on Test Displays where the light stimuli are seen by the patient via a Lens Stack without excessive aberration such that the light stimuli are presented in an Eye Box which may be between about 8 mm and about 12 mm. [0329] Continuing with the example embodiment shown in FIGS. 6 to 10, a mechanism for adjusting the distance between the Test Display 804 and the first lens 818a at the top of the Lens Stack to correct for spherical refractive error, commonly referred to as short or long distance vision, is provided for as illustrated in FIG. 10.”).
On the other hand, the above embodiment of Eadie fails to explicitly disclose but another embodiment of Eadie discloses a supplemental prescription lens that imparts a cylindrical correction to the image (“[0319] Referring now to FIGS. 13 to 15, shown therein are various views of an example embodiment of Cylindrical Correction Lens 1300, a lens mount attachment 1308 and a Cylindrical Correction Lens Mount 1500 that may collectively be removably inserted into the HMU 104p or 104p1 for correcting for any cylindrical vision issues (i.e. astigmatism) that the patient 214 may have”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the two embodiments, to include all limitations of claim 1. That is, adding the cylindrical correction lens of the second embodiment to the first embodiment of Eadie. The motivation/ suggestion would have been correcting for any cylindrical vision issues (i.e. astigmatism) that the patient (Eadie, [0319]).
Regarding claim 2, Eadie discloses The head-mounted device defined in claim 1.
Eadie further discloses wherein the supplemental prescription lens is removably attached to the support structure using clips (“[0321] The lens mount attachment 1310 comprises a frame 1312, a retaining clip 1314 located along a portion of the frame 1312, a graduated lens guide 1316 located along an angular section of the frame 1312 and a slot 1318 that extends along the length of the graduated lens guide 1314 and is positioned underneath the graduated lens guide 1316 and above a bottom portion of the frame 1312. A tab insertion area 1319 is positioned adjacent the lost 1318. The retaining clip 1314 is raised above the upper surface of the frame 1312 to provide a gap that slidably receives a portion of the frame 1302 of the Cylindrical Correction Lens 1300. The lens mount attachment 1310 also comprises alignment markers 1320, 1322, 1324 and 1326 which are used when attaching the lens mount attachment 1310 to the Cylindrical Correction Lens Mount 1500.”).
Regarding claim 3, Eadie discloses The head-mounted device defined in claim 1.
Eadie further discloses wherein the spherical correction is configured to accommodate a myopic population of users (“[0329] Continuing with the example embodiment shown in FIGS. 6 to 10, a mechanism for adjusting the distance between the Test Display 804 and the first lens 818a at the top of the Lens Stack to correct for spherical refractive error, commonly referred to as short or long distance vision, is provided for as illustrated in FIG. 10. Accordingly, the Lens Focus Scale Viewpoint 602 may be viewed by the Technician 216b when rotating the Spherical lens focus adjustment ring 606 to cater to the particular vision of the patient 214; i.e. to correct for short-sightedness or far-sightedness”).
Regarding claim 4, Eadie discloses The head-mounted device defined in claim 1.
Eadie further discloses wherein the spherical correction is configured to accommodate a hyperopic population of users (“[0329] Continuing with the example embodiment shown in FIGS. 6 to 10, a mechanism for adjusting the distance between the Test Display 804 and the first lens 818a at the top of the Lens Stack to correct for spherical refractive error, commonly referred to as short or long distance vision, is provided for as illustrated in FIG. 10. Accordingly, the Lens Focus Scale Viewpoint 602 may be viewed by the Technician 216b when rotating the Spherical lens focus adjustment ring 606 to cater to the particular vision of the patient 214; i.e. to correct for short-sightedness or far-sightedness”).
Regarding claim 5, Eadie discloses The head-mounted device defined in claim 1.
Eadie further discloses wherein the distance between the lens and the display is adjustable (“[0329] Continuing with the example embodiment shown in FIGS. 6 to 10, a mechanism for adjusting the distance between the Test Display 804 and the first lens 818a at the top of the Lens Stack to correct for spherical refractive error, commonly referred to as short or long distance vision, is provided for as illustrated in FIG. 10”).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eadie et al. (US 20230218159) in view of KIM (US 20230048195).
Regarding claim 6, Eadie discloses The head-mounted device defined in claim 5.
On the other hand, Eadie fails to explicitly disclose but KIM discloses wherein the distance between the lens and the display is a first distance when accommodating myopic vision and a second distance when accommodating hyperopic vision and wherein the first distance is less than the second distance (“[0280] In order to provide an infinite distance virtual image to a near-sighted user, a virtual image position I.sub.1 is formed closer to a main optics lens 40 than a virtual image reference position I.sub.0 of normal vision to allow light entering an eye lens to be properly focused on a retina with the same principle of correction glasses for a near-sighted eye described above so that the near-sighted user can view the infinite distance virtual image properly. In order to implement this, the position of the display 10 is adjusted to D.sub.md1 which is closer to the first lens 20 than a position of the normal vision. [0281] In order to provide an infinite distance virtual image to a far-sighted user, a virtual image position I.sub.2 is formed farther away from the main optics lens 40 than the virtual image reference position I.sub.0 of the normal vision to allow light entering an eye lens to be properly focused on a retina as the same principle of correction glasses for a far-sighted eye described above so that the far-sighted user can view the infinite distance virtual image properly. In order to implement this, the position of the display 10 may be adjusted to D.sub.md2, which is farther away from the first lens 20 than a position of the normal vision.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined KIM and Eadie, to include all limitations of claim 6. That is, applying adjusting distance between the lens and display based on a near-sighted user or a far-sighted user of KIM to the HMD of Eadie. The motivation/ suggestion would have been the first lens 20 and the main optics lens 40 may be applied in the form of several lens elements and groups having the same effective focal distance to improve optical performance (KIM, [0282]).
Claim(s) 7, 11, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eadie et al. (US 20230218159) in view of Sharma et al. (US 20220404608).
Regarding claim 7, Eadie discloses The head-mounted device defined in claim 1.
On the other hand, Eadie fails to explicitly disclose but Sharma discloses wherein a combination of the spherical correction and the cylindrical correction is configured to provide a given prescription correction to the image, wherein the given prescription correction is based on a user's actual prescription (“[0013] In some AR/VR devices, prescription lenses may be placed between the user's eyes and the AR/VR display to correct for imperfections and/or refractive errors of the user's eyes. [0014] a prescription lens is often customized for a particular user and/or a particular group of users. [0027] such an apparatus and/or system may facilitate and/or support determinations and/or calibrations of MTF and/or color uniformity or sharpness for AR/VR displays fitted and/or equipped with prescription lenses. These prescription lenses may provide and/or impart only spherical corrections, only cylindrical corrections, or both spherical and cylindrical corrections”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Sharma and Eadie, to include all limitations of claim 7. That is, applying the prescription lenses with both spherical and cylindrical corrections of Sharma to the HMD of Eadie. The motivation/ suggestion would have been selectively compensating for corrective lenses applied to display devices during testing (Sharma, [0012]).
Regarding claim 11, Eadie discloses A head-mounted device, comprising: a support structure (“[0121] wherein the Visual Test Unit comprises: a Head Mounted Unit having: a Shell for providing a housing for electrical and optical components of the Head Mounted Unit, the Shell being worn on the head of the patient”); a display coupled to the support structure and configured to display an image (“[0137] wherein the apparatus comprises: a Test Display for generating visual stimuli that are presented to an eye of the patient during the visual field testing. [0303] The Test Display 804 is disposed above the Lens Stack Housing 802”);
a first lens that is permanently attached to the support structure and that provides a virtual image distance that accommodates a population selected from the group consisting of: a myopic population and a hyperopic population (“[0172] FIG. 12 illustrates an example embodiment of a schematic of a Lens Stack showing the effect on the disbursement of light along different regions of the light spectrum through the lenses of the Lens Stack in order to provide an image that is spatially located in an Eye Box of a particular diameter at the patient's eyes. [0303] As illustrated in FIG. 8, a Lens Stack housing 802 is located within the Shell 601 that includes the optical elements of one of the Lens Stacks, such as Lens Stack 520 for example. The elements of the Lens Stack include a cold mirror 812, and various Lenses 818a-818d. [0329] Continuing with the example embodiment shown in FIGS. 6 to 10, a mechanism for adjusting the distance between the Test Display 804 and the first lens 818a at the top of the Lens Stack to correct for spherical refractive error, commonly referred to as short or long distance vision, is provided for as illustrated in FIG. 10. That distance can be adjusted by turning the Spherical Lens Focus Adjustment Ring 606 as illustrated in FIGS. 6 and 10. Accordingly, the Lens Focus Scale Viewpoint 602 may be viewed by the Technician 216b when rotating the Spherical lens focus adjustment ring 606 to cater to the particular vision of the patient 214; i.e. to correct for short-sightedness or far-sightedness.”).
On the other hand, the above embodiment of Eadie fails to explicitly disclose but another embodiment of Eadie discloses a second lens that is removably attached to the support structure (“[0319] Referring now to FIGS. 13 to 15, shown therein are various views of an example embodiment of Cylindrical Correction Lens 1300, a lens mount attachment 1308 and a Cylindrical Correction Lens Mount 1500 that may collectively be removably inserted into the HMU 104p or 104p1 for correcting for any cylindrical vision issues (i.e. astigmatism) that the patient 214 may have. The Cylindrical Correction Lens 1300 is rotatably positioned with the lens attachment 1308 and the lens mount attachment 1308 is removably mounted to the Cylindrical Correction Lens Mount 1500”),
wherein the display is visible from an eye box through the first and second lenses (“[0334] The optical components of the HMU 104, 104p or 104p1 include both Test Displays, the Lens Stacks housed in the two Lens Stacks Housings and the Cylindrical Correction Lenses. Depending on the actual embodiment, the number of lenses in the Lens Stacks, the spacing of the lenses in the Lens Stacks and the design of the lenses themselves will vary depending on the characteristics of the Test Displays and the desired Eye Box diameter. The implementation of these various optical components is to maximize the diameter of the Eye Box while simultaneously minimizing any aberration of the visual stimuli, particularly towards the periphery of the visual field of the patient 214”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the two embodiments. That is, adding the cylindrical correction lens of the second embodiment to the first embodiment of Eadie. The motivation/ suggestion would have been correcting for any cylindrical vision issues (i.e. astigmatism) that the patient (Eadie, [0319]).
On the other hand, Eadie fails to explicitly disclose but Sharma discloses wherein the first and second lenses are configured to provide a combined prescription correction (“[0013] In some AR/VR devices, prescription lenses may be placed between the user's eyes and the AR/VR display to correct for imperfections and/or refractive errors of the user's eyes. [0014] a prescription lens is often customized for a particular user and/or a particular group of users. [0027] such an apparatus and/or system may facilitate and/or support determinations and/or calibrations of MTF and/or color uniformity or sharpness for AR/VR displays fitted and/or equipped with prescription lenses. These prescription lenses may provide and/or impart only spherical corrections, only cylindrical corrections, or both spherical and cylindrical corrections”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Sharma and Eadie, to include all limitations of claim 11. That is, applying the prescription lenses with both spherical and cylindrical corrections of Sharma to the HMD of Eadie. The motivation/ suggestion would have been selectively compensating for corrective lenses applied to display devices during testing (Sharma, [0012]).
Regarding claim 13, Eadie in view of Sharma discloses The head-mounted device defined in claim 11.
Eadie further discloses clips that are configured to removably attach the second lens to the support structure (“[0321] The lens mount attachment 1310 comprises a frame 1312, a retaining clip 1314 located along a portion of the frame 1312, a graduated lens guide 1316 located along an angular section of the frame 1312 and a slot 1318 that extends along the length of the graduated lens guide 1314 and is positioned underneath the graduated lens guide 1316 and above a bottom portion of the frame 1312. A tab insertion area 1319 is positioned adjacent the lost 1318. The retaining clip 1314 is raised above the upper surface of the frame 1312 to provide a gap that slidably receives a portion of the frame 1302 of the Cylindrical Correction Lens 1300. The lens mount attachment 1310 also comprises alignment markers 1320, 1322, 1324 and 1326 which are used when attaching the lens mount attachment 1310 to the Cylindrical Correction Lens Mount 1500.”).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eadie et al. (US 20230218159) in view of Fujikado et al. (US 20150219926).
Regarding claim 8, Eadie discloses The head-mounted device defined in claim 1.
On the other hand, Eadie fails to explicitly disclose but Fujikado discloses wherein the spherical correction has a negative optical power to accommodate a myopic population (“[0067] in such optical part 24, the refractive correction power that corrects myopia and myopic astigmatism is set in a central region 32 containing an optical axis center 30. If the wearer has myopia that does not require astigmatism correction, for example, a lens power of negative diopter for myopic correction corresponding to the degree of myopia is set in the central region 32 of the optical part 24 as a spherical lens power so as to eliminate myopic blur seen by a naked eye.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Fujikado and Eadie, to include all limitations of claim 8. That is, applying the ophthalmic lenses of Legerton to the HMD of Eadie. The motivation/ suggestion would have been to eliminate myopic blur seen by a naked eye (Fujikado, [0067]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eadie et al. (US 20230218159) in view of Fujikado et al. (US 20150219926), and further in view of Legerton (US 20170038605).
Regarding claim 9, Eadie discloses The head-mounted device defined in claim 8.
On the other hand, Eadie in view of Fujikado fails to explicitly disclose but Legerton discloses wherein the spherical correction and the cylindrical correction combine to form a prescription that accommodates presbyopia (“[0071] In various embodiments, the ophthalmic lenses may be non-prescription or may be made according to a prescription containing spherical lenses and/or cylindrical lenses for the correction of nearsightedness (e.g., myopia), farsightedness (e.g., hyperopia), astigmatisms (e.g., caused by asymmetry of the eye), presbyopia (e.g., caused by loss of elasticity by the lens of the eye), or the like.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Legerton, Fujikado and Eadie, to include all limitations of claim 9. That is, applying the ophthalmic lenses of Legerton to the HMD of Eadie and Fujikado. The motivation/ suggestion would have been to protect eye health, improve visual performance, and maintain sound mental and sound emotional states when exposed to electromagnetic radiation including high energy blue light (Legerton, [0022]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eadie et al. (US 20230218159) in view of Zhou et al. (US 20210231977 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Eadie discloses The head-mounted device defined in claim 1.
On the other hand, Eadie fails to explicitly disclose but Zhou discloses wherein the spherical correction has a positive optical power to accommodate a hyperopic population (“[0142] On the other hand, if the eye is hyperopic, the positive lens can be moved further away from the negative lens to make the front focal point of the positive lens land behind the front focal point of the negative lens, which will make the overall refraction of the combination having a net positive refractive power, thus offering the capability to correct the spherical refractive error of a hyperopic eye.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Zhou and Eadie, to include all limitations of claim 10. That is, applying the positive refractive power to correct the spherical refractive error of a hyperopic eye of Zhou to the HMD of Eadie. The motivation/ suggestion would have been offering the capability to correct the spherical refractive error of a hyperopic eye (Zhou, [0142]).
Claim(s) 12, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eadie et al. (US 20230218159) in view of Sharma et al. (US 20220404608), and further in view of KIM (US 20230048195).
Regarding claim 12, Eadie in view of Sharma discloses The head-mounted device defined in claim 11.
On the other hand, Eadie in view of Sharma fails to explicitly disclose but KIM discloses
wherein the virtual image distance is adjustable (“[0025] The near-eye display device may further include a display position adjustment element configured to adjust a distance between the display and the first lens, wherein the control system controls the display position adjustment element according to the set best virtual image position to adjust a best virtual image position.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined KIM and Eadie, Sharma, to include all limitations of claim 12. That is, applying adjusting distance between the lens and display of KIM to the HMD of Eadie and Sharma. The motivation/ suggestion would have been the first lens 20 and the main optics lens 40 may be applied in the form of several lens elements and groups having the same effective focal distance to improve optical performance (KIM, [0282]).
Regarding claim 14, Eadie in view of Sharma discloses The head-mounted device defined in claim 11, wherein Eadie discloses wherein the second lens is one of multiple prescription lenses configured to be removably attached to the support structure (“[0319] Referring now to FIGS. 13 to 15, shown therein are various views of an example embodiment of Cylindrical Correction Lens 1300, a lens mount attachment 1308 and a Cylindrical Correction Lens Mount 1500 that may collectively be removably inserted into the HMU 104p or 104p1 for correcting for any cylindrical vision issues (i.e. astigmatism) that the patient 214 may have. The Cylindrical Correction Lens 1300 is rotatably positioned with the lens attachment 1308 and the lens mount attachment 1308 is removably mounted to the Cylindrical Correction Lens Mount 1500”).
On the other hand, Eadie in view of Sharma fails to explicitly disclose but KIM discloses wherein the multiple prescription lenses accommodate at least some of the myopic population and the hyperopic population (“[0280] In order to provide an infinite distance virtual image to a near-sighted user, a virtual image position I.sub.1 is formed closer to a main optics lens 40 than a virtual image reference position I.sub.0 of normal vision to allow light entering an eye lens to be properly focused on a retina with the same principle of correction glasses for a near-sighted eye described above so that the near-sighted user can view the infinite distance virtual image properly. In order to implement this, the position of the display 10 is adjusted to D.sub.md1 which is closer to the first lens 20 than a position of the normal vision. [0281] In order to provide an infinite distance virtual image to a far-sighted user, a virtual image position I.sub.2 is formed farther away from the main optics lens 40 than the virtual image reference position I.sub.0 of the normal vision to allow light entering an eye lens to be properly focused on a retina as the same principle of correction glasses for a far-sighted eye described above so that the far-sighted user can view the infinite distance virtual image properly. In order to implement this, the position of the display 10 may be adjusted to D.sub.md2, which is farther away from the first lens 20 than a position of the normal vision.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined KIM and Eadie, to include all limitations of claim 14. That is, applying the main optics lens of KIM to the HMD of Eadie and Sharma. The motivation/ suggestion would have been the first lens 20 and the main optics lens 40 may be applied in the form of several lens elements and groups having the same effective focal distance to improve optical performance (KIM, [0282]).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eadie et al. (US 20230218159) in view of Sharma et al. (US 20220404608), and further in view of Zhou et al. (US 20210231977 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Eadie in view of Sharma discloses The head-mounted device defined in claim 11.
On the other hand, Eadie in view of Sharma fails to explicitly disclose but Zhou discloses wherein the first lens has a nonzero spherical power (“[0142] On the other hand, if the eye is hyperopic, the positive lens can be moved further away from the negative lens to make the front focal point of the positive lens land behind the front focal point of the negative lens, which will make the overall refraction of the combination having a net positive refractive power, thus offering the capability to correct the spherical refractive error of a hyperopic eye.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Zhou and Eadie, Sharma, to include all limitations of claim 15. That is, applying the positive refractive power to correct the spherical refractive error of a hyperopic eye of Zhou to the first lens of Eadie and Sharma. The motivation/ suggestion would have been offering the capability to correct the spherical refractive error of a hyperopic eye (Zhou, [0142]).
Claim(s) 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan et al. (US 20200225477).
Regarding claim 16, Chan discloses A method, comprising: determining a vision prescription of a user; based on the vision prescription, selecting a head-mounted display unit from a group of head-mounted display units with different virtual image distances (“[0033] The strength (sometimes referred to as the power or diopter) of lenses 82 can be selected to place virtual images such as illustrative virtual object 92 at a desired distance D from device 10. For example, it may be desirable to place computer-generated content such as text, icons, moving images, or other content at a virtual image distance D. The placement of virtual object 92 at distance D can be accomplished by appropriate selection of the strength of lenses 82. Lenses 82 may be negative lenses for users whose eyes do not have refraction errors. The strength (larger net negative power) of lenses 82 can therefore be selected to adjust distance D. [0047] Vision correction lens 106 may be configured to match a user's normal eyeglass prescription. For example, lens 106 may be a positive lens to correct for a user's farsightedness, a negative lens to correct for a user's nearsightedness, may be an asymmetric lens to correct for a user's astigmatism, may be a progressive lens for a user with presbyopia, etc.”).
On the other hand, the above embodiment of Chan fails to explicitly disclose but another embodiment of Chan discloses based on the vision prescription, selecting a supplemental prescription lens from a group of supplemental prescription lenses with different prescriptions (“[0036] Some users may require vision correction. Vision correction may be provided using tunable lenses and/or removable lenses (sometimes referred to as supplemental lenses, vision correction lenses, removable lenses, or clip-on lenses). [0041] When a user with a different prescription (e.g., a nearsighted user with no astigmatism), a different customized lens 82 may be removably installed within system 96 to correct for that user's vision defect.”); and
attaching the selected supplemental prescription lens to the selected head- mounted display unit, wherein the selected head-mounted display unit and the selected supplemental prescription lens form a combined prescription that matches the vision prescription (“[0018] When this user desires to view content with the head-mounted device, the supplemental lenses may be installed within the head-mounted device to help correct for the user's astigmatism. With one illustrative arrangement, the supplemental lenses may be coupled to the head-mounted support structures using magnets or other removable fasteners that place the supplemental lenses in alignment with non-removable lenses in the device. [0049] User's with presbyopia may use progressive eyeglass prescriptions, so, if desired, vision correction lens 106 may be a progressive lens and/or may have a progressive lens power combined with an astigmatism correction lens component, and/or a nearsightedness or farsightedness correction component. In general, any suitable vision correction lens attributes may be combined into a single removable vision correction lens such as lens 106.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the two embodiments, to include all limitations of claim 16. That is, adding the removable lens of the second embodiment to the first embodiment of Eadie. The motivation/ suggestion would have been to ensure that a wide range of users are able to clearly focus on the display and view visual content (Chan, [0018]).
Regarding claim 17, Chan discloses The method defined in claim 16.
Chan further discloses wherein the group of head-mounted display units comprises a first head-mounted display unit having a first virtual image distance, a second head-mounted display unit having a second virtual image distance, and a third head- mounted display unit having a third virtual image distance, and wherein the first, second, and third virtual image distances are different (fig.3, “[0033] The strength (sometimes referred to as the power or diopter) of lenses 82 can be selected to place virtual images such as illustrative virtual object 92 at a desired distance D from device 10. The placement of virtual object 92 at distance D can be accomplished by appropriate selection of the strength of lenses 82. The strength (larger net negative power) of lenses 82 can therefore be selected to adjust distance D. For example, in a scenario in which lenses 82 are −0.5 diopter lenses, virtual object 92 may be placed at a distance D of 2 m away from device 10. As another example, if lenses 82 are −1.0 diopter lenses, virtual object 92 may be placed at a distance of 1 m from device 10. [0035] For a user with satisfactory uncorrected vision, this type of complementary lens arrangement therefore allows virtual objects to be placed in close proximity to the user (e.g., at a virtual image distance D of 0.5-5 m, at least 0.1 m, at least 1 m, at least 2 m, less than 20 m, less than 10 m, less than 5 m, or other suitable near-to-midrange distance from device 10 while simultaneously allowing the user to view real world objects without modification by the optical components of the optical system”. For instance, as illustrated in the annotated reproduced fig.3 of Chan below, the distances D1-D3
PNG
media_image1.png
645
526
media_image1.png
Greyscale
corresponds to the first, second, and third virtual image distances
).
Regarding claim 18, Chan discloses The method defined in claim 17.
Chan further discloses wherein the first head-mounted display unit is configured to accommodate myopic vision and the second head-mounted display unit is configured to accommodate hyperopic vision (“[0036] Other vision correction lenses may also be used, if desired. In general, the vision correction lenses may include lenses to correct for ammetropia (eyes with refractive errors) such as lenses to correct for nearsightedness (myopia), lenses to correct for farsightedness (hyperopia), and lenses to correct for astigmatism, prism lenses to correct for skewed vision, lenses to help accommodate age-related reductions in the range of accommodation exhibited by the eyes (sometimes referred to as presbyopia), and/or other vision disorders.”).
Regarding claim 19, Chan discloses The method defined in claim 18.
Chan further discloses wherein the first virtual image distance is less than the second virtual image distance (fig.3, “[0033] For example, in a scenario in which lenses 82 are −0.5 diopter lenses, virtual object 92 may be placed at a distance D of 2 m away from device 10. As another example, if lenses 82 are −1.0 diopter lenses, virtual object 92 may be placed at a distance of 1 m from device 10. [0035] For a user with satisfactory uncorrected vision, this type of complementary lens arrangement therefore allows virtual objects to be placed in close proximity to the user (e.g., at a virtual image distance D of 0.5-5 m, at least 0.1 m, at least 1 m, at least 2 m, less than 20 m, less than 10 m, less than 5 m, or other suitable near-to-midrange distance from device 10 while simultaneously allowing the user to view real world objects without modification by the optical components of the optical system”).
Regarding claim 20, Chan discloses The method defined in claim 19.
PNG
media_image1.png
645
526
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Chan further discloses wherein the third virtual image distance is greater than the first virtual image distance and less than the second virtual image distance (fig.3, “[0033] The strength (sometimes referred to as the power or diopter) of lenses 82 can be selected to place virtual images such as illustrative virtual object 92 at a desired distance D from device 10. The placement of virtual object 92 at distance D can be accomplished by appropriate selection of the strength of lenses 82. The strength (larger net negative power) of lenses 82 can therefore be selected to adjust distance D. For example, in a scenario in which lenses 82 are −0.5 diopter lenses, virtual object 92 may be placed at a distance D of 2 m away from device 10. As another example, if lenses 82 are −1.0 diopter lenses, virtual object 92 may be placed at a distance of 1 m from device 10. [0035] For a user with satisfactory uncorrected vision, this type of complementary lens arrangement therefore allows virtual objects to be placed in close proximity to the user (e.g., at a virtual image distance D of 0.5-5 m, at least 0.1 m, at least 1 m, at least 2 m, less than 20 m, less than 10 m, less than 5 m, or other suitable near-to-midrange distance from device 10 while simultaneously allowing the user to view real world objects without modification by the optical components of the optical system”. For instance, as illustrated in the annotated reproduced fig.3 of Chan below, the distances D1-D3 corresponds to the first, second, and third virtual image distances, and D1<D3<D2
).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRACE Q LI whose telephone number is (571)270-0497. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am-5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, DEVONA FAULK can be reached at 571-272-7515. 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.
/GRACE Q LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2618 7/21/2026
Prosecution Insights