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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Invention II (Claims 6-20) in the reply filed on 08/20/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.03(a)).
Claims 1-5 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention I.
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 6, line 7, "for making waveguide lens" should read - - for making the waveguide lens - -
In claim 13, lines 2-4, for “a material of each of the first lens and the second lens is an optical lens material comprises glass, cyclic olefin copolymer, polymethylmethacrylate and polycarbonate” should read - - a material of each of the first lens and the second lens is an optical lens material comprises glass, cyclic olefin copolymer, polymethylmethacrylate or polycarbonate - - since the paragraph [0056] of the specification of the instant application states that the material of the first lens 1002 and the second lens 1003 may be an optical lens material such as glass, cyclic olefin copolymer, polymethylmethacrylate, and polycarbonate.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In regard to claim 14, the limitation, “each of the first lens and the second lens has a radius of curvature ranging from 25 to 300” renders the scope of the claim unclear since there is no units following 25 or 300. It is not clear that each of the first lens and the second lens has a radius of curvature ranging from 25mm to 300 mm, or each of the first lens and the second lens has a radius of curvature ranging from 25 cm to 300 cm, or some other units for 25 and 300. Therefore, the scope of the claim 17 is not clear. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will interpret the above limitation as - - each of the first lens and the second lens has a radius of curvature ranging from 25mm to 300 mm - -.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 6, 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated Gacoin (US 2017/0102561, 1st interpretation).
Regarding claim 6, Gacoin teaches a waveguide lens (the ophthalmic lens or puck made from the mold 2 in Fig. 1A, Abs, [0001-0058]) made from a mold (the mold 2 in Fig. 1A);
the waveguide lens (the ophthalmic lens or puck made from the mold 2 in Fig. 1A, Abs, [0032]) comprising an optical waveguide assembly (the assembly corresponding to the insert 1 in Fig. 1A, [0034]), at least one first lens (the lens molded to the front face of 1 at the side of 2A in Fig. 1A, [0032]) and at least one second lens (the lens molded to the back face of 1 at the side of 2B in Fig. 1A, [0032]), wherein
the optical waveguide assembly (the assembly corresponding to the insert 1 in Fig. 1A, [0034]) is disposed between (Fig. 1A) the first lens (the lens molded to the front face of 1 at the side of 2A in Fig. 1A, [0032]) and the second lens (the lens molded to the back face of 1 at the side of 2B in Fig. 1A, [0032]), the at least one of the first lens (the lens molded to the front face of 1 at the side of 2A in Fig. 1A, [0032]) and the at least one second lens (the lens molded to the back face of 1 at the side of 2B in Fig. 1A, [0032]) is integrally molded (Abs, [0032]) and disposed with the optical waveguide assembly (the assembly corresponding to the insert 1 in Fig. 1A, [0034]); and
the mold (the mold 2 in Fig. 1A, see Examiner note 1) configured for making waveguide lens (Abs, [0032]), the mold (the mold 2 in Fig. 1A, see Examiner note 1) comprising:
a first mold comprising a first slot defined on one side, the first slot being configured to accommodate the optical waveguide assembly with optical assist function; and
a second mold configured for molding with the first mold, the second mold comprising a second slot defined on a side of the second mold facing the first mold,
wherein the optical waveguide assembly comprises a first surface (the front face of 1 at the side of 2A in Fig. 1A, [0032]) close the second mold, the second slot is configured for molding the first lens (the lens molded to the front face of 1 at the side of 2A in Fig. 1A, [0032]) on the first surface (Fig. 1A, see Examiner note 1).
(Examiner note 1: the claim limitation of “the mold configured for making the waveguide lens, the mold comprising: a first mold comprising a first slot defined on one side, the first slot being configured to accommodate the optical waveguide assembly with optical assist function; and a second mold configured for molding with the first mold, the second mold comprising a second slot defined on a side of the second mold facing the first mold, wherein the optical waveguide assembly comprises the first surface close the second mold, the second slot is configured for molding the first lens on the first surface” is being treated as a product-by-process limitation. Per MPEP 2113 I., PRODUCT-BY-PROCESS CLAIMS ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE MANIPULATIONS OF THE RECITED STEPS, ONLY THE STRUCTURE IMPLIED BY THE STEPS. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In this case, since the structure implied by the molding process/steps for the first lens, which is the lens molded to the front face of 1 at the side of 2A in Fig. 1A, is taught by Gacoin already, Gacoin teaches all of the structure limitations of the claim 1).
Regarding claim 17, Gacoin teaches the mold (the mold 2 in Fig. 1A, see Examiner notes 1 and 2) further comprising: a third mold comprising a third slot defined on one side, the third slot being configured to hold the first lens and the optical waveguide assembly; and a fourth mold configured for molding with the third mold, the fourth mold comprising a fourth slot defined on a side of the fourth mold facing the third mold; the optical waveguide assembly further comprising a second surface (the back face of 1 at the side of 2B in Fig. 1A, [0032]), the second surface is disposed opposite to the first surface and provided close to the fourth mold, the fourth mold is configured for molding a second lens (the lens molded to the back face of 1 at the side of 2B in Fig. 1A, [0032]) on the second surface (Fig. 1A, see Examiner note 2).
(Examiner note 2: the claim limitation of “the mold further comprising: a third mold comprising a third slot defined on one side, the third slot being configured to hold the first lens and the optical waveguide assembly; and a fourth mold configured for molding with the third mold, the fourth mold comprising a fourth slot defined on a side of the fourth mold facing the third mold; the optical waveguide assembly further comprising a second surface, the second surface is disposed opposite to the first surface and provided close to the fourth mold, the fourth mold is configured for molding a second lens on the second surface” is being treated as a product-by-process limitation. Per MPEP 2113 I., PRODUCT-BY-PROCESS CLAIMS ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE MANIPULATIONS OF THE RECITED STEPS, ONLY THE STRUCTURE IMPLIED BY THE STEPS. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In this case, since the structure implied by the molding process/steps for the second lens, which is the lens molded to the back face of 1 at the side of 2B in Fig. 1A, is taught by Gacoin already, Gacoin teaches all of the structure limitations of the claim 17).
Regarding claim 18, Gacoin teaches that the first lens (the lens molded to the front face of 1 at the side of 2A in Fig. 1A, [0032]) is an objective lens (Fig. 1A, [0032, 0034], the mould comprising a first mould portion 2A intended to mould the front face of the ophthalmic lens or puck; and the ophthalmic lens being intended to be placed in front of one eye of a wearer) and the second lens (the lens molded to the back face of 1 at the side of 2B in Fig. 1A, [0032]) is an eyepiece (Fig. 1A, [0032, 0034], the mould comprising a second mould portion 2B intended to mould the back face of the ophthalmic lens or puck; and the ophthalmic lens being intended to be placed in front of one eye of a wearer); a slot width of the fourth slot is less than a slot width of the third slot (See examiner note 3).
(Examiner note 3: the claim limitation of “a slot width of the fourth slot is less than a slot width of the third slot” is related to the mold and being treated as a product-by-process limitation. Per MPEP 2113 I., PRODUCT-BY-PROCESS CLAIMS ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE MANIPULATIONS OF THE RECITED STEPS, ONLY THE STRUCTURE IMPLIED BY THE STEPS. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In this case, since the structure implied by the molding process/steps for the second lens, which is the lens molded to the back face of 1 at the side of 2B in Fig. 1A, is taught by Gacoin already, Gacoin teaches all of the structure limitations of the claim 18).
Regarding claim 20, Gacoin teaches the first lens (the lens molded to the front face of 1 at the side of 2A in Fig. 1A, [0032]) is molded on the first surface of the optical waveguide assembly (the front face of 1 at the side of 2A in Fig. 1A, [0032]) by a casting process (See examiner note 4).
(Examiner note 4: the claim limitation of “the first lens is molded on the first surface of the optical waveguide assembly by a casting process” is being treated as a product-by-process limitation. Per MPEP 2113 I., PRODUCT-BY-PROCESS CLAIMS ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE MANIPULATIONS OF THE RECITED STEPS, ONLY THE STRUCTURE IMPLIED BY THE STEPS. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In this case, since the structure implied by the casting molding process/steps for the first lens, which is the lens molded to the front face of 1 at the side of 2A in Fig. 1A, is taught by Gacoin already, Gacoin teaches all of the structure limitations of the claim 20).
Claims 6, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated Gacoin (US 2017/0102561, 2nd interpretation).
Regarding claim 6, Gacoin teaches a waveguide lens (the ophthalmic lens or puck made from the mold 2 in Fig. 2, Abs, [0001-0058]) made from a mold (the mold 2 in Fig. 2);
the waveguide lens (the ophthalmic lens or puck made from the mold 2 in Fig. 2, Abs, [0032]) comprising an optical waveguide assembly (the assembly corresponding to the insert 1 in Fig. 2, [0034]), at least one first lens (the lens molded to the back face of 1 at the side of 2B in Fig. 2, [0032]) and at least one second lens (the lens molded to the front face of 1 at the side of 2A in Fig. 2, [0032]), wherein
the optical waveguide assembly (the assembly corresponding to the insert 1 in Fig. 2, [0034]) is disposed between (Fig. 2) the first lens and the second lens (Fig. 2), the at least one of the first lens (the lens molded to the back face of 1 at the side of 2B in Fig. 2) and the at least one second lens (the lens molded to the front face of 1 at the side of 2A in Fig. 2) is integrally molded (Abs, [0032]) and disposed with the optical waveguide assembly (the assembly corresponding to the insert 1 in Fig. 2, [0034]); and
the mold (the mold 2 in Fig. 2, see Examiner note 1) configured for making waveguide lens (Abs, [0032]), the mold (the mold 2 in Fig. 2, see Examiner note 1) comprising:
a first mold comprising a first slot defined on one side, the first slot being configured to accommodate the optical waveguide assembly with optical assist function; and
a second mold configured for molding with the first mold, the second mold comprising a second slot defined on a side of the second mold facing the first mold,
wherein the optical waveguide assembly comprises a first surface (the back face of 1 at the side of 2B in Fig. 2) close the second mold, the second slot is configured for molding the first lens (the lens molded to the back face of 1 at the side of 2B in Fig. 2) on the first surface (Fig. 2, see Examiner note 5).
(Examiner note 5: the claim limitation of “the mold configured for making the waveguide lens, the mold comprising: a first mold comprising a first slot defined on one side, the first slot being configured to accommodate the optical waveguide assembly with optical assist function; and a second mold configured for molding with the first mold, the second mold comprising a second slot defined on a side of the second mold facing the first mold, wherein the optical waveguide assembly comprises the first surface close the second mold, the second slot is configured for molding the first lens on the first surface” is being treated as a product-by-process limitation. Per MPEP 2113 I., PRODUCT-BY-PROCESS CLAIMS ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE MANIPULATIONS OF THE RECITED STEPS, ONLY THE STRUCTURE IMPLIED BY THE STEPS. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In this case, since the structure implied by the molding process/steps for the first lens, which is the lens molded to the back face of 1 at the side of 2B in Fig. 2, is taught by Gacoin already, Gacoin teaches all of the structure limitations of the claim 1).
Regarding claim 17, Gacoin teaches the mold (the mold 2 in Fig. 2, see Examiner notes 5 and 6) further comprising: a third mold comprising a third slot defined on one side, the third slot being configured to hold the first lens and the optical waveguide assembly; and a fourth mold configured for molding with the third mold, the fourth mold comprising a fourth slot defined on a side of the fourth mold facing the third mold; the optical waveguide assembly further comprising a second surface (the front face of 1 at the side of 2A in Fig. 2, [0032]), the second surface is disposed opposite to the first surface and provided close to the fourth mold, the fourth mold is configured for molding a second lens (the lens molded to the front face of 1 at the side of 2A in Fig. 2, [0032]) on the second surface (Fig. 2, see Examiner note 6).
(Examiner note 6: the claim limitation of “the mold further comprising: a third mold comprising a third slot defined on one side, the third slot being configured to hold the first lens and the optical waveguide assembly; and a fourth mold configured for molding with the third mold, the fourth mold comprising a fourth slot defined on a side of the fourth mold facing the third mold; the optical waveguide assembly further comprising a second surface, the second surface is disposed opposite to the first surface and provided close to the fourth mold, the fourth mold is configured for molding a second lens on the second surface” is being treated as a product-by-process limitation. Per MPEP 2113 I., PRODUCT-BY-PROCESS CLAIMS ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE MANIPULATIONS OF THE RECITED STEPS, ONLY THE STRUCTURE IMPLIED BY THE STEPS. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In this case, since the structure implied by the molding process/steps for the second lens, which is the lens molded to the front face of 1 at the side of 2A in Fig. 2, is taught by Gacoin already, Gacoin teaches all of the structure limitations of the claim 17).
Regarding claim 19, Gacoin teaches that the first lens (the lens molded to the back face of 1 at the side of 2B in Fig. 2, [0032]) is an eyepiece (Fig. 2, [0032, 0034], the mould comprising a second mould portion 2B intended to mould the back face of the ophthalmic lens or puck; and the ophthalmic lens being intended to be placed in front of one eye of a wearer) and the second lens (the lens molded to the front face of 1 at the side of 2A in Fig. 2, [0032]) is an objective lens (Fig. 2, [0032, 0034], the mould comprising a first mould portion 2A intended to mould the front face of the ophthalmic lens or puck; and the ophthalmic lens being intended to be placed in front of one eye of a wearer); a slot width of the fourth slot is greater than a slot width of the third slot (See examiner note 7).
(Examiner note 7: the claim limitation of “a slot width of the fourth slot is greater than a slot width of the third slot” is related to the mold and being treated as a product-by-process limitation. Per MPEP 2113 I., PRODUCT-BY-PROCESS CLAIMS ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE MANIPULATIONS OF THE RECITED STEPS, ONLY THE STRUCTURE IMPLIED BY THE STEPS. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In this case, since the structure implied by the molding process/steps for the second lens, which is the lens molded to the front face of 1 at the side of 2A in Fig. 2, is taught by Gacoin already, Gacoin teaches all of the structure limitations of the claim 18).
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 of this title, 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 7, 9, 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gacoin (1st interpretation) as applied to claim 6 above, and in view of Yan (US 2020/0049996).
Regarding claims 7, 9, 12 and 16, Gacoin teaches that each of the first lens and the second lens is integrally molded with the optical waveguide assembly (Fig. 1A). Gacoin does not teach the following elements.
Yan teaches the following elements (Fig. 3 and 7, [0030, 0036-0042, 0070]):
(Claim 7) an optical waveguide assembly (the assembly corresponding to 48, 52, 66, 68, 70, 72 and 74 in Fig. 3, Fig. 7, [0030, 0036, 0038, 0070]), further comprises a grating structure (48 and 52 in Fig. 3, [0030]) and an optical function layer (the layer corresponding to 66, or the layer corresponding to 70 and 68 in Fig. 3, [0030, 0036, 0038]) provided in a stack (Fig. 3); the waveguide lens (Fig. 3) further comprises an adhesive layer ([0038]), the grating structure (48 and 52 in Fig. 3, [0030]) and the optically function layer (the layer corresponding to 66, or the layer corresponding to 70 and 68 in Fig. 3, [0030, 0036, 0038]) is affixed to each other by the adhesive layer ([0038]).
(Claim 9) an optical waveguide assembly (the assembly corresponding to 48, 52, 66, 68, 70, 72 and 74 in Fig. 3, Fig. 7, [0030, 0036, 0038, 0070]) comprises a grating structure (48 and 52 in Fig. 3, [0030]); a first lens (74 in Fig. 3) and a second lens (72 in Fig. 3) are provided on opposite sides of the grating structure (Fig. 3).
(Claim 12) a material of the grating structure (48 and 52 in Fig. 3, [0030]) comprises one of a geometric waveguide, a diffractive waveguide, a surface relief grating waveguide and a holographic grating waveguide ([0030]).
(Claim 16) a material of the adhesive layer comprises an OCA adhesive ([0038], the optically-transparent adhesive film is a OCA adhesive) or an OCR adhesive.
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to the artisan of ordinary skill to employ the above elements as taught by Yan for the system of Gacoin such that in the system of Gacoin,
(Claim 7) the optical waveguide assembly further comprises a grating structure and an optical function layer provided in a stack; the waveguide lens further comprises an adhesive layer, the grating structure and the optically function layer is affixed to each other by the adhesive layer.
(Claim 9) the optical waveguide assembly comprises a grating structure; the first lens and the second lens are provided on opposite sides of the grating structure, and each of the first lens and the second lens is integrally molded with the grating structure.
(Claim 12) a material of the grating structure comprises one of a geometric waveguide, a diffractive waveguide, a surface relief grating waveguide and a holographic grating waveguide.
(Claim 16) a material of the adhesive layer comprises an OCA adhesive or an OCR adhesive.
The motivation is to provide augmented reality glasses used in providing a user with virtual reality and/or augmented reality content (Yan, [0014-0015]).
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gacoin (1st interpretation) in view of Yan as applied to claims 7 and 9 above, and further in view of Nguyen (US 2025/0138316).
Regarding claims 8 and 10, Gacoin does not teach the following elements.
Nguyen teaches the following elements (Fig. 9, [0212, 0247-0258]):
(Claim 8) an optically function layer (Fig. 9, [0256]) comprises: an electrochromic dimming function layer ([0256, 0247], the one or more electrochromic devices can be molded to, adhered to, or otherwise secured to the world side and/or the user side of the third set of optical elements 902b, e.g., to the world side of the eye tracking assembly 914), and an eye tracking function layer (914 in Fig. 9, [0256]).
(Claim 10) an electrochromic dimming function layer (0256, 0247], the one or more electrochromic devices can be molded to, adhered to, or otherwise secured to the world side of the optical lens 908); wherein the electrochromic dimming function layer is affixed ([0256]) to a third surface of a first lens (the world side surface of the lens 908 in Fig. 9, [0256]) away from middle optical guide element (902b/912 in Fig. 9, [0213]).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to the artisan of ordinary skill to employ the above elements as taught by Nguyen Yan for the system of Gacoin in view of Yan such that in the system of Gacoin in view of Yan,
(Claim 8) the optically function layer comprises: an electrochromic dimming function layer, and an eye tracking function layer.
(Claim 10) an electrochromic dimming function layer; wherein the electrochromic dimming function layer is affixed to a third surface of the first lens away from the grating structure.
The motivation is to provide head mounted displays having enhanced optical performance characteristics (Nguyen, [0422, 0008]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gacoin (1st interpretation) as applied to claim 6 above, and in view of Khan (US 2019/0146198).
Regarding claim 13, Gacoin does not teach the following elements.
Khan teaches the following elements (Fig. 3, Fig. 6 [0009, 0030, 0037, 0039, 0046, 0056-0057]):
(Claim 13) each of a first lens (the lens corresponding to 26 and 22 in Fig. 3) and a second lens (the lens corresponding to 32 and 30 in Fig. 3) is a spherical mirror, an aspherical mirror ([0037, 0039, 0030, 0009]) or a double aspherical mirror; a material of each of the first lens and the second lens is an optical lens material comprises glass ([0046, 0056]), cyclic olefin copolymer, polymethylmethacrylate or polycarbonate ([0030]).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to the artisan of ordinary skill to employ the above elements as taught by Khan for the system of Gacoin such that in the system of Gacoin,
(Claim 13) each of the first lens and the second lens is a spherical mirror, an aspherical mirror or a double aspherical mirror; a material of each of the first lens and the second lens is an optical lens material comprises glass, cyclic olefin copolymer, polymethylmethacrylate and polycarbonate
The motivation is to improve sharpness or reduce distortion in the image presented to the user (Khan, [0037]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gacoin (1st interpretation) as applied to claim 6 above, and in view of Nguyen (US 2025/0138316).
Regarding claim 14, Gacoin does not teach the following elements.
Nguyen teaches the following elements (Fig. 9, [0211, 0214, 0212, 0247-0258]):
(Claim 14) each of a first lens (908 in Fig. 9, which is an ophthalmic lens, [0211]) and a second lens (916 in Fig. 9, which is an ophthalmic lens, [0214]) has a refractive index ranging from 1.5 to 1.6 ([0226, 0037, 0041]), and each of the first lens and the second lens has a radius of curvature ranging from 150 mm to 1000 mm ([0226, 0037, 0041]).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to the artisan of ordinary skill to employ the above elements as taught by Nguyen to try and recognize that in the system of Gacoin in view of Yan,
(Claim 14) each of the first lens and the second lens has a refractive index ranging from 1.4 to 2.0 (MPEP 2131.03 I.), and each of the first lens and the second lens has a radius of curvature ranging from 25 mm to 300 mm (MPEP 2144. 05 I.).
The motivation is to provide head mounted displays having enhanced optical performance characteristics (Nguyen, [0422, 0008]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gacoin (1st interpretation) as applied to claim 6 above, and in view of Jethmalani (US 2021/0046717).
Regarding claim 15, Gacoin teaches that a shape of the waveguide lens is a circular, an oval, a rectangular and a square (Fig. 1B and Fig. 1C, [0035-0037]). Gacoin does not teach the following elements.
Jethmalani teaches the following elements (Fig. 4, [0061, 0071, 0083]):
(Claim 15) a waveguide lens has a width ranging from 6.5 centimeters to 8.5 centimeters ([0061, 0071]); a thickness of the waveguide lens ranges from 8 mm to 15 mm.
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to the artisan of ordinary skill to employ the above elements as taught by Jethmalani to try and recognize that in the system of Gacoin in view of Yan,
(Claim 15) the waveguide lens has a maximum width ranging from 3 centimeters to 30 centimeters; a maximum thickness of the waveguide lens ranges from 0.2 mm to 20 mm.
The motivation is to provide thermoplastic semi-finished lens blanks or finished prescription eyeglass lenses (Jethmalani, [0003], MPEP 2131.03 I., MPEP 2144. 05 I.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
None of the prior art of record discloses or suggests all the combination of a waveguide lens as set forth in claims 11.
Regarding claim 11, none of the prior art discloses or suggests a waveguide lens recited in claim 9, wherein “the waveguide lens further comprising an eye tracking function layer, wherein the eye tracking function layer is disposed on a fourth surface of the grating structure that is not affixed by the second lens, the eye tracking function layer is disposed surrounding the second lens” in combination with the other required elements of the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAN LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-0383. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm EST 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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached on 571-272-9791. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Shan Liu/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
