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 .
The instant application having Application No. 18/911,832 filed on 10/10/2024 is presented for examination by the examiner.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 9, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Laffont (WO 2018147811 A1)(see attached copy).
Regarding claim 9, Laffont discloses a method, in at least Figure 8, comprising:
receiving, by a processor (“controller/processing unit”), user input data indicating that a user wearing a head-mounted display (HMD) has provided user input (paragraph 009 states "The method may further include receiving an input, the input being information including at least one of a characteristic of the user's eyesight, an eyeglasses prescription of the user, eyesight information of the user, demographic information of the user or a state of an eye condition of the user and determining the focus of the optical system may be performed in response to the received input") to adjust an optical power of an electrically-controllable lens of the HMD (paragraph 0017 states "The controller moves the at least two of the two or more lenses laterally over one another in a specific direction to generate either a positive spherical power change or a negative spherical power change for correcting the view of the user in response to a refractive error condition of the eye of the user, the refractive error condition of the eye of the user including myopia, hyperopia or presbyopia, or in response to a refocusing request"); and
providing, by the processor (“controller/processing unit”), and based at least in part on the user input data, a control signal to the electrically-controllable lens to adjust the optical power of the electrically-controllable lens (paragraph 00118 states "The controller/processing unit sends an appropriate signal to the motors via at least one motor driver which ensures the motor is moved to the determined location").
Regarding claim 12, Laffont discloses a system, in at least Figure 8, comprising:
a head-mounted display (HMD)(800 “focus adjustable stereoscopic display system”, paragraph 00127, Figure 8) comprising:
a display panel (58 "display screen", Figure 8); and
a pair of lens tubes (56 "lens barrels", Figure 8);
a pair of electrically-controllable lenses (54a, 54b "lenses", Figure 8) coupled, or couplable, to the pair of lens tubes (56 "lens barrels", paragraph 00124 states "lenses 54a, 54b which can be moved within the lens barrels 56. The moveable lenses 54a, 54b are translated along their optical axes using an actuator", paragraph 0074 states "The actuator may be in the form of a stepping motor based on electromagnetic, piezoelectric or ultrasonic techniques") and configured to direct light emitted by the display panel (58 "display screen") toward eyes of a user wearing the HMD (paragraph 00124 states "The viewer sees the visible light coming from the LCD display 58 through lenses 54a, 54b, and 62");
a processor (“controller/processing unit”, paragraph 00117 states "At least one controller or a processing unit (not shown) controls the image shown on the display, and determines the actuation of the motors and thus the position of the lenses. The controller/processing unit sends an appropriate signal to the motors via at least one motor driver which ensures the motor is moved to the determined location", paragraph 0118 states "the appropriate position of each lens 504 is determined by a controller/processing unit (not shown) through precalculated ray tracing simulations, in order to make the virtual image appear at a specific depth, when viewed through the said lens 504 from at least one reference position"); and
memory storing computer-executable instructions (paragraph 0052 states "The computer readable medium may include storage devices such as magnetic or optical disks, memory chips, or other storage devices suitable for interfacing with a computer") that, when executed by the processor (“controller/processing unit”), cause the processor (“controller/processing unit”) to provide a control signal to an electrically-controllable lens (54a, 54b "lenses") of the pair of electrically-controllable lenses (54a, 54b "lenses") to adjust an optical power of the electrically-controllable lens (54a, 54b "lenses", paragraph 00118 states "The controller/processing unit sends an appropriate signal to the motors via at least one motor driver which ensures the motor is moved to the determined location").
Regarding claim 15, Laffont discloses all the limitations of claim 12 and further discloses wherein: the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the processor (“controller/processing unit”), further cause the processor (“controller/processing unit”) to receive user input data indicating that the user has provided user input (paragraph 009 states "The method may further include receiving an input, the input being information including at least one of a characteristic of the user's eyesight, an eyeglasses prescription of the user, eyesight information of the user, demographic information of the user or a state of an eye condition of the user and determining the focus of the optical system may be performed in response to the received input") to adjust the optical power of the electrically-controllable lens (54a, 54b "lenses", paragraph 0017 states "The controller moves the at least two of the two or more lenses laterally over one another in a specific direction to generate either a positive spherical power change or a negative spherical power change for correcting the view of the user in response to a refractive error condition of the eye of the user, the refractive error condition of the eye of the user including myopia, hyperopia or presbyopia, or in response to a refocusing request"); and the control signal is provided to the electrically-controllable lens (54a, 54b "lenses") based at least in part on the user input data (paragraph 0017).
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 11, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laffont (WO 2018147811 A1)(see attached copy).
Regarding claim 1, Laffont discloses a system, in at least Figure 8, comprising:
a head-mounted display (HMD)(800 “focus adjustable stereoscopic display system”, paragraph 00127, Figure 8) comprising:
a display panel (58 "display screen", Figure 8); and
a pair of lens tubes (56 "lens barrels", Figure 8);
a pair of electrically-controllable lenses (54a, 54b "lenses", paragraph 00124 states "lenses 54a, 54b which can be moved within the lens barrels 56. The moveable lenses 54a, 54b are translated along their optical axes using an actuator", paragraph 0074 states "The actuator may be in the form of a stepping motor based on electromagnetic, piezoelectric or ultrasonic techniques", Figure 8) comprising a first electrically-controllable lens (54a “lens”, Figure 8) and a second electrically-controllable lens (54b “lens”, Figure 8), the pair of electrically-controllable lenses (54a, 54b "lenses") configured to:
be coupled to the pair of lens tubes (56 "lens barrels", paragraph 00124 states "lenses 54a, 54b which can be moved within the lens barrels 56"); and
direct light emitted by the display panel (58 "display screen") toward eyes (82a, 82b, Figure 8) of a user wearing the HMD (paragraph 00124 states "The viewer sees the visible light coming from the LCD display 58 through lenses 54a, 54b, and 62");
a processor ("controller/processing unit", paragraph 00117 states "At least one controller or a processing unit (not shown) controls the image shown on the display, and determines the actuation of the motors and thus the position of the lenses. The controller/processing unit sends an appropriate signal to the motors via at least one motor driver which ensures the motor is moved to the determined location", paragraph 0118 states "the appropriate position of each lens 504 is determined by a controller/processing unit (not shown) through precalculated ray tracing simulations, in order to make the virtual image appear at a specific depth, when viewed through the said lens 504 from at least one reference position"); and
memory storing computer-executable instructions (paragraph 0052 states "The computer readable medium may include storage devices such as magnetic or optical disks, memory chips, or other storage devices suitable for interfacing with a computer") that, when executed by the processor (“controller/processing unit”), cause the processor (“controller/processing unit”) to provide:
a first control signal to the first electrically-controllable lens to adjust a first optical power of the first electrically-controllable lens (paragraph 00118 states "The controller/processing unit sends an appropriate signal to the motors via at least one motor driver which ensures the motor is moved to the determined location").
However, Laffont does not disclose a second control signal to the second electrically-controllable lens to adjust a second optical power of the second electrically-controllable lens.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to duplicate a control signal such that a second control signal to the second electrically-controllable lens to adjust a second optical power of the second electrically-controllable lens, since it has been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 3, Laffont discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the processor (“controller/processing unit”), further cause the processor (“controller/processing unit”) to receive first user input data indicating that the user has provided first user input (paragraph 009 states "The method may further include receiving an input, the input being information including at least one of a characteristic of the user's eyesight, an eyeglasses prescription of the user, eyesight information of the user, demographic information of the user or a state of an eye condition of the user and determining the focus of the optical system may be performed in response to the received input") to adjust the first optical power of the first electrically-controllable lens (54a “lens”, paragraph 0017 states "The controller moves the at least two of the two or more lenses laterally over one another in a specific direction to generate either a positive spherical power change or a negative spherical power change for correcting the view of the user in response to a refractive error condition of the eye of the user, the refractive error condition of the eye of the user including myopia, hyperopia or presbyopia, or in response to a refocusing request"); and the first control signal is provided to the first electrically-controllable lens (54a “lens”) based at least in part on the first user input data (paragraph 0017).
Regarding claim 4, Laffont discloses all the limitations of claim 3 and further discloses the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the processor (“controller/processing unit”), further cause the processor (“controller/processing unit”) to receive user input data indicating that the user has provided user input (paragraph 009 states "The method may further include receiving an input, the input being information including at least one of a characteristic of the user's eyesight, an eyeglasses prescription of the user, eyesight information of the user, demographic information of the user or a state of an eye condition of the user and determining the focus of the optical system may be performed in response to the received input") to adjust the optical power of the second electrically-controllable lens (54b “lens”, paragraph 0017 states "The controller moves the at least two of the two or more lenses laterally over one another in a specific direction to generate either a positive spherical power change or a negative spherical power change for correcting the view of the user in response to a refractive error condition of the eye of the user, the refractive error condition of the eye of the user including myopia, hyperopia or presbyopia, or in response to a refocusing request"); and the control signal is provided to the second electrically-controllable lens based at least in part on the user input data (paragraph 0017).
However, Laffont does not disclose the processor to receive second user input data indicating that the user has provided second user input to adjust the second optical power of the second electrically-controllable lens; and the second control signal is provided to the second electrically-controllable lens based at least in part on the second user input data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to duplicate user input data, user input, and optical power such that the processor to receive second user input data indicating that the user has provided second user input to adjust the second optical power of the second electrically-controllable lens; and the second control signal is provided to the second electrically-controllable lens based at least in part on the second user input data, since it has been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 11, Laffont discloses all the limitations of claim 9 and further discloses wherein the electrically-controllable lens (54a, 54b "lenses", Figure 8) is a first electrically-controllable lens (54a “lens”) of a pair of electrically-controllable lenses (54a, 54b "lenses") of the HMD, the pair of electrically-controllable lenses (54a, 54b "lenses") including the first electrically-controllable lens (54a “lens”) and a second electrically-controllable lens (54b "lens", paragraph 00124 states "lenses 54a, 54b which can be moved within the lens barrels 56. The moveable lenses 54a, 54b are translated along their optical axes using an actuator", paragraph 0074 states "The actuator may be in the form of a stepping motor based on electromagnetic, piezoelectric or ultrasonic techniques"), the method further comprising: receiving, by the processor (“controller/processing unit”), user input data indicating that the user has provided user input (paragraph 009 states "The method may further include receiving an input, the input being information including at least one of a characteristic of the user's eyesight, an eyeglasses prescription of the user, eyesight information of the user, demographic information of the user or a state of an eye condition of the user and determining the focus of the optical system may be performed in response to the received input") to adjust an optical power of the electrically-controllable lens (paragraph 0017 states "The controller moves the at least two of the two or more lenses laterally over one another in a specific direction to generate either a positive spherical power change or a negative spherical power change for correcting the view of the user in response to a refractive error condition of the eye of the user, the refractive error condition of the eye of the user including myopia, hyperopia or presbyopia, or in response to a refocusing request"); and providing, by the processor (“controller/processing unit”), and based at least in part on the user input data, a control signal to the electrically-controllable lens to adjust the optical power of the electrically-controllable lens (paragraph 00118 states "The controller/processing unit sends an appropriate signal to the motors via at least one motor driver which ensures the motor is moved to the determined location").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to duplicate user input data, optical power, and a control signal such that second user input data indicating that the user has provided second user input to adjust a second optical power of the second electrically-controllable lens; and providing, by the processor, and based at least in part on the second user input data, a second control signal to the second electrically-controllable lens to adjust the second optical power of the second electrically-controllable lens, since it has been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 19, Laffont discloses all the limitations of claim 12 and further discloses wherein: the electrically-controllable lens (54a “lens”) is a first electrically-controllable lens (54a “lens”) of the pair of electrically-controllable lenses (54a, 54b "lenses", paragraph 00124 states "lenses 54a, 54b which can be moved within the lens barrels 56. The moveable lenses 54a, 54b are translated along their optical axes using an actuator", paragraph 0074 states "The actuator may be in the form of a stepping motor based on electromagnetic, piezoelectric or ultrasonic techniques", Figure 8); and the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the processor (controller/processing unit”), further cause the processor (controller/processing unit”) to provide a control signal to a second electrically-controllable lens (54b "lenses") of the pair of electrically-controllable lenses (54a, 54b "lenses", paragraph 009 states "The method may further include receiving an input, the input being information including at least one of a characteristic of the user's eyesight, an eyeglasses prescription of the user, eyesight information of the user, demographic information of the user or a state of an eye condition of the user and determining the focus of the optical system may be performed in response to the received input") to adjust an optical power of the second electrically-controllable lens (54b "lens", paragraph 0017 states "The controller moves the at least two of the two or more lenses laterally over one another in a specific direction to generate either a positive spherical power change or a negative spherical power change for correcting the view of the user in response to a refractive error condition of the eye of the user, the refractive error condition of the eye of the user including myopia, hyperopia or presbyopia, or in response to a refocusing request").
However, Laffont does not disclose a second control signal to a second electrically-controllable lens of the pair of electrically-controllable lenses to adjust a second optical power of the second electrically-controllable lens.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to duplicate a control signal such that a second control signal to a second electrically-controllable lens of the pair of electrically-controllable lenses to adjust a second optical power of the second electrically-controllable lens, since it has been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Claims 2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laffont (WO 2018147811 A1)(see attached copy), in view of Yoshitaka (JP 3068420 B2)(see attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 2, Laffont discloses all the limitations of claim 1, however Laffont does not disclose wherein the first control signal causes the first electrically-controllable lens to: modify phase of the light that passes through a center of the first electrically-controllable lens by a first amount; and modify the phase of the light that passes through a periphery of the first electrically-controllable lens by a second amount different than the first amount.
Yoshitaka teaches wherein the first control signal causes the first electrically-controllable lens to: modify phase of the light that passes through a center of the first electrically-controllable lens by a first amount (page 9, paragraph 6 of translation states “the phase of the light transmitted through the central part of the objective lens is changed from the phase of the light transmitted through the peripheral part of the objective lens”); and modify the phase of the light that passes through a periphery of the first electrically-controllable lens by a second amount different than the first amount (page 9, paragraph 6 of translation states “the phase of the light transmitted through the central part of the objective lens is changed from the phase of the light transmitted through the peripheral part of the objective lens”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the system of Laffont modified by wherein the first control signal causes the first electrically-controllable lens to: modify phase of the light that passes through a center of the first electrically-controllable lens by a first amount; and modify the phase of the light that passes through a periphery of the first electrically-controllable lens by a second amount different than the first amount, as taught by Yoshitaka, in order to improve imaging.
Regarding claim 14, Laffont discloses all the limitations of claim 12, however Laffont does not disclose wherein the control signal causes the electrically-controllable lens to: modify phase of the light that passes through a center of the electrically-controllable lens by a first amount; and modify the phase of the light that passes through a periphery of the electrically-controllable lens by a second amount different than the first amount.
Yoshitaka teaches wherein the control signal causes the electrically-controllable lens to: modify phase of the light that passes through a center of the electrically-controllable lens by a first amount (page 9, paragraph 6 of translation states “the phase of the light transmitted through the central part of the objective lens is changed from the phase of the light transmitted through the peripheral part of the objective lens”); and modify the phase of the light that passes through a periphery of the electrically-controllable lens by a second amount different than the first amount (page 9, paragraph 6 of translation states “the phase of the light transmitted through the central part of the objective lens is changed from the phase of the light transmitted through the peripheral part of the objective lens”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the system of Laffont modified by wherein the control signal causes the electrically-controllable lens to: modify phase of the light that passes through a center of the electrically-controllable lens by a first amount; and modify the phase of the light that passes through a periphery of the electrically-controllable lens by a second amount different than the first amount, as taught by Yoshitaka, in order to improve imaging.
Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laffont (WO 2018147811 A1)(see attached copy), in view of Maric (US 20210325678 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Laffont discloses all the limitations of claim 1, however Laffont does not disclose wherein the pair of electrically-controllable lenses are accessories to the HMD and are configured to be coupled to the pair of lens tubes by the user.
Maric teaches wherein the pair of electrically-controllable lenses (50 “vision correcting lens”, Figure 4) are accessories to the HMD and are configured to be coupled to the pair of lens tubes (32 “support structure”, Figure 4) by the user (paragraph 0042 states "In the diagram of FIG. 4, an illustrative vision correcting lens (vision correcting lens 50) is shown as being removably attached to support structure 32 (e.g., to structure 32-1) in alignment with lens 30 and display 14", paragraphs 0048-0051, Figure 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the system of Laffont modified by wherein the pair of electrically-controllable lenses are accessories to the HMD and are configured to be coupled to the pair of lens tubes by the user, as taught by Maric, in order to help accommodate users desiring individualized vision correction (paragraph 0006).
Regarding claim 16, Laffont discloses all the limitations of claim 12, however Laffont does not disclose wherein the pair of electrically-controllable lenses are accessories to the HMD and are configured to be coupled to the pair of lens tubes by the user.
Maric teaches wherein the pair of electrically-controllable lenses (50 “vision correcting lens”, Figure 4) are accessories to the HMD and are configured to be coupled to the pair of lens tubes (32 “support structure”, Figure 4) by the user (paragraph 0042 states "In the diagram of FIG. 4, an illustrative vision correcting lens (vision correcting lens 50) is shown as being removably attached to support structure 32 (e.g., to structure 32-1) in alignment with lens 30 and display 14", paragraphs 0048-0051, Figure 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the system of Laffont modified by wherein the pair of electrically-controllable lenses are accessories to the HMD and are configured to be coupled to the pair of lens tubes by the user, as taught by Maric, in order to help accommodate users desiring individualized vision correction (paragraph 0006).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laffont (WO 2018147811 A1)(see attached copy), in view of Haddick (US 20200192089 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Laffont discloses all the limitations of claim 1, however Laffont does not disclose a transceiver, wherein: the first control signal is transmitted wirelessly, via the transceiver, to the first electrically-controllable lens; and the second control signal is transmitted wirelessly, via the transceiver, to the first electrically-controllable lens.
Haddick teaches a transceiver, wherein: the first control signal is transmitted wirelessly, via the transceiver, to the first electrically-controllable lens (paragraph 0299 states "The controls for adjusting the focus of the adjustable focus lenses in one embodiment comprises a 2D or 3D wireless air mouse or other non-contact control responsive to gestures or movements of the user").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the system of Laffont modified by a transceiver, wherein: the first control signal is transmitted wirelessly, via the transceiver, to the first electrically-controllable lens, as taught by Haddick, in order to include capability for wireless internet (paragraph 0029).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to duplicate a control signal such that the second control signal is transmitted wirelessly, via the transceiver, to the first electrically-controllable lens, since it has been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Claims 7, 13, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laffont (WO 2018147811 A1)(see attached copy), in view of Hudman (US 20210132323 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Laffont discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses the HMD further comprises a pair of lenses (62 “lenses”, paragraph 00124 states "lenses 62 which have a fixed position", Figure 8) disposed within the pair of lens tubes (56 "lens barrels", paragraph 00124 states “The embodiment comprises lens barrels 56 containing lenses 62 which have a fixed position”, Figure 8).
However, Laffont does not disclose the pair of electrically-controllable lenses are configured to be disposed between the pair of lenses and the eyes of the user wearing the HMD.
Hudman teaches the pair of electrically-controllable lenses (130 "optical subsystems", Figure 1) are configured to be disposed between the pair of lenses (107l "left set of lenses", 107r "right set of lenses", Figure 1) and the eyes (105l "left eye", 105r "right eye") of the user wearing the HMD (paragraph 0027 states "The optical system 112 includes a plurality of optical subsystems 130 including a left optical subsystem 1301 for modifying the virtual image light 102 for the left eye 1051 and a right optical subsystem 130r for modifying the virtual image light 102 for the right eye 105r. Each of the left and right optical subsystems 1301 and 130r may be independently adjustable to correct for visual deficiencies or defects in the left eye 1051 and the right eye 105r, respectively", Figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the system of Laffont modified by the pair of electrically-controllable lenses are configured to be disposed between the pair of lenses and the eyes of the user wearing the HMD, as taught by Hudman, in order to focus, collimate, or modify virtual image light (paragraph 0022).
Regarding claim 13, Laffont discloses all the limitations of claim 12, however Laffont does not disclose wherein each electrically-controllable lens of the pair of electrically-controllable lenses is independently controllable.
Hudman teaches wherein each electrically-controllable lens of the pair of electrically-controllable lenses (130 "optical subsystems", Figure 1) is independently controllable (paragraph 0027 states "Each of the left and right optical subsystems 1301 and 130r may be independently adjustable to correct for visual deficiencies or defects in the left eye 1051 and the right eye 105r, respectively").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the system of Laffont modified by wherein each electrically-controllable lens of the pair of electrically-controllable lenses is independently controllable, as taught by Hudman, in order to correct for visual deficiencies in either eye independently (paragraph 0027).
Regarding claim 17, Laffont discloses all the limitations of claim 12 and further discloses wherein: the HMD further comprises a pair of lenses (62 "lenses", Figure 8) within the pair of lens tubes (56 "lens barrels", paragraph 00124 states “The embodiment comprises lens barrels 56 containing lenses 62 which have a fixed position”, Figure 8). However, Laffont does not disclose the pair of electrically-controllable lenses are configured to be disposed between the pair of lenses and the eyes of the user wearing the HMD.
Hudman teaches the pair of electrically-controllable lenses (130 "optical subsystems", Figure 1) are configured to be disposed between the pair of lenses (107l "left set of lenses", 107r "right set of lenses", Figure 1)) and the eyes 105l "left eye", 105r "right eye") of the user wearing the HMD (paragraph 0027 states "The optical system 112 includes a plurality of optical subsystems 130 including a left optical subsystem 1301 for modifying the virtual image light 102 for the left eye 1051 and a right optical subsystem 130r for modifying the virtual image light 102 for the right eye 105r. Each of the left and right optical subsystems 1301 and 130r may be independently adjustable to correct for visual deficiencies or defects in the left eye 1051 and the right eye 105r, respectively", Figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the system of Laffont modified by the pair of electrically-controllable lenses are configured to be disposed between the pair of lenses and the eyes of the user wearing the HMD, as taught by Hudman, in order to focus, collimate, or modify virtual image light (paragraph 0022).
Regarding claim 20, Laffont discloses all the limitations of claim 19, however Laffont does not disclose wherein the second optical power is different than the optical power of the first electrically-controllable lens.
Hudman teaches wherein the second optical power is different than the optical power of the first electrically-controllable lens (130l “left optical subsystem”, paragraph 0027 states "Each of the left and right optical subsystems 1301 and 130r may be independently adjustable to correct for visual deficiencies or defects in the left eye 1051 and the right eye 105r, respectively").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the system of Laffont modified by wherein the second optical power is different than the optical power of the first electrically-controllable lens, as taught by Hudman, in order to correct for visual deficiencies in either eye independently (paragraph 0027).
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laffont (WO 2018147811 A1)(see attached copy), in view of Liu (CN 107783304 A)(see attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 8, Laffont discloses all the limitations of claim 1, however Laffont does not disclose wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to: provide a first series of control signals, including the first control signal, to the first electrically-controllable lens in synchronization with a refresh rate of the display panel; and provide a second series of control signals, including the second control signal, to the second electrically-controllable lens in synchronization with the refresh rate of the display panel.
Liu teaches wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to: provide a first series of control signals, including the first control signal, to the first electrically-controllable lens in synchronization with a refresh rate of the display panel (last paragraph of page 9 – first paragraph of page 10 of translation states "microlens focal f (refresh), correspondingly, the display array layer 110 can be high image refresh frequency. For example, both are 120 Hertz refresh rate and display array layer of the focus lens 110 of the image refreshing frequency").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the system of Laffont modified by wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to: provide a first series of control signals, including the first control signal, to the first electrically-controllable lens in synchronization with a refresh rate of the display panel, as taught by Liu, in order to form a continuous image for the user without sacrificing resolution (last paragraph of page 9 – first paragraph of page 10 of translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to duplicate a series of control signals such that a second series of control signals, including the second control signal, to the second electrically-controllable lens in synchronization with the refresh rate of the display panel, since it has been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 18, Laffont discloses all the limitations of claim 12, however Laffont does not disclose wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to provide a series of control signals, including the control signal, to the electrically-controllable lens in synchronization with a refresh rate of the display panel.
Liu teaches wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to provide a series of control signals, including the control signal, to the electrically-controllable lens in synchronization with a refresh rate of the display panel (last paragraph of page 9 – first paragraph of page 10 of translation states "microlens focal f (refresh), correspondingly, the display array layer 110 can be high image refresh frequency. For example, both are 120 Hertz refresh rate and display array layer of the focus lens 110 of the image refreshing frequency").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the system of Laffont modified by wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to provide a series of control signals, including the control signal, to the electrically-controllable lens in synchronization with a refresh rate of the display panel, as taught by Liu, in order to form a continuous image for the user without sacrificing resolution (last paragraph of page 9 – first paragraph of page 10 of translation).
Claims 7, 13, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laffont (WO 2018147811 A1)(see attached copy), in view of Brennan (RU 2015136493 A).
Regarding claim 10, Laffont discloses all the limitations of claim 9, however Laffont does not disclose wherein the control signal causes the electrically-controllable lens to have: a first optical power at a center of the electrically-controllable lens; and a second optical power at a periphery of the electrically-controllable lens, the second optical power different than the first optical power.
Brennan teaches wherein the control signal causes the electrically-controllable lens to have: a first optical power at a center of the electrically-controllable lens (claim 1 states “the first peripheral region, continuously extending from the center, while the first peripheral region has an optical power that is different from the optical power in the center”); and a second optical power at a periphery of the electrically-controllable lens, the second optical power different than the first optical power (claim 1 states “the first peripheral region, continuously extending from the center, while the first peripheral region has an optical power that is different from the optical power in the center”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the method of Laffont modified by wherein the control signal causes the electrically-controllable lens to have: a first optical power at a center of the electrically-controllable lens; and a second optical power at a periphery of the electrically-controllable lens, the second optical power different than the first optical power, as taught by Brennan, in order to prevent progression of myopia (claim 1).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAINA M SWANSON whose telephone number is (703)756-5809. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7:30am-4:00pm.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached at 571-270-1284. 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.
/ALAINA MARIE SWANSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/WILLIAM R ALEXANDER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights