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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 17/614,422, filed on November 26, 2021.
For applicant’s information, for purpose of prior art, at least the claim 1 (and therefore all of its dependent claims) is not supported by patent application 17/614,422 and therefore claims 1-20 are not entitled to the benefit of the filing date of this patent application. Specifically, claim 1 at least lacks support in the parent application regarding progressive optical power. Therefore, for purposes of prior art, claims 1-20 are entitled to the benefit of October 16, 2024 corresponding to the filing date of this instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on October 16, 2024, February 25, 2025 and October 21, 2025 comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 3, 8-11, 13 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 3 “wherein said inner surface is configured to exhibit a characteristic shape that defines a spherical power and a cylindrical power” raises clarity issues. Since this is a statement of fact it is unclear what the further limitation is. Stating a law of optics fails to further the device. The examiner respectfully suggests cancelling the claim.
Claims 9-10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite, since they depend on claim 3 and therefore have the same deficiencies.
Regarding claims 8-9 “wherein said a distant vison zone base curvature of said distant vision zone is configured to correct power for far distance ophthalmic vision of said user, wherein a near vision zone base curvature of said near vision zone is configured to correct power for near distance ophthalmic vision of said user” and “wherein an intermediate vision zone base curvature of said intermediate vision zone is configured to correct for intermediate distance ophthalmic vision of said user” raises clarity issues. It is unclear what the further limitations are. The limitations set forth an eponymous definition, i.e. a progressive lens with distant, intermediate and near vison zones correct a user’s distant, intermediate and near vision, respectively, by a lens properties. Insofar as it is understood the claim fails to further limit the device. The examiner respectfully suggests cancelling the claims.
Regarding claim 11 “wherein said front surface base curvature and said rear surface base curvature are defined” raises clarity issues. It is unclear what an undefined lens surface would be. It is unclear if this is an incomplete sentence, such as “defined by an aspherical curve” or if applicant means that are not random or if a different word was meant, such as prescription. The examiner cannot decern what applicant is claiming. Using the plain meaning of the words, for purposes of examination the examiner interprets that in a NED that surfaces and curvatures of a lens are “defined” and not random inherently. The examiner respectfully suggests cancelling the claims.
Regarding claims 19 “wherein an optical arrangement of said curved mirror, said third lens, and said fourth lens enables said intermediate image to be aberration-compensated” raises clarity issues. It is unclear if (case 1) the intermediate image is aberration-compensated or (case 2) if the optical arrangement is capable of allowing the intermediate image to be aberration-compensated or (case 3) this is a benefit that necessarily flows from the structure. In case 1, it is also unclear if applicant has omitted essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections, see MPEP 2172.01. In light of the specification, see paragraph [0041], notes the claimed optical path required by claim 18 is “enabling pre-emptive correction of astigmatism and distortion”. Insofar as the examiner can determine applicant is claiming an inherent benefit of the arrangement of the arrangement of claim 18. For purposes of examination the examiner will interpret claim 19 depends from claim 18 and that this is an inherent effect/benefit. Since noting an inherent effect/benefit flowing from the optical arrangement does not further limit the structure or function the examiner respectively suggests merging claim 19 with claim 18.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite, since it depends on claim 19 and therefore has the same deficiencies.
Regarding claims 20 “wherein said aberration-compensated said intermediate image is configured to forestall the effect of aberrations produced at least partially by said inner surface radius of curvature of said partially transmissive partially reflective lens” raises clarity issues. The issues of claim 20 are substantially similar to claim 19. For purposes of examination the examiner will interpret claim 20 is an inherent effect/benefit. Since noting an inherent effect/benefit flowing from the optical arrangement does not further limit the structure or function the examiner respectively suggests merging claim 20 with claims 18 and 19.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 3, 6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Regarding claims 3, 6 and 8-9, as set forth above, insofar as they are understood the claims fail to further limit the device. Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yonekubo et al. US Patent Application Publication 2018/0067326 in view of Ashkenazi et al. US Patent Application Publication 2015/0168730, with evidence of certain facts provided by Wikipedia webpage “Progressive lens” as of 2024.
Regarding claims 1 and 15-20 Yonekubo discloses an optical see-through (OST) near-eye display (NED) system (title e.g. figures 1 & 4 HMD 300), integrating ophthalmic correction for an eye of a user (inter alia paragraph [0003] “a see-through type image display device, even if a wearer having a near-sightedness, long-sightedness, or the like, visibility of the external light is increased by performing diopter adjustment of the external light”), comprising: a partially transmissive partially reflective lens (e.g. second optical system 14 a.k.a. lens 36), including: an inner surface (e.g. eye side surface 14a) having an inner surface radius of curvature exhibiting a first optical power (e.g. see figure 4), an outer surface (e.g. external light side surface 14b) having an outer surface varying radius of curvature exhibiting a second optical power (e.g. see figure 4), and at least two zones, including a near vision zone characterized by a first progressive optical power, and a distant vision zone characterized by a second progressive optical power (paragraph [0064] notes 36 may be a progressive focus lens, which by definition has a near vision zone that progressively transitions through an intermediate zone to a far vision zone), wherein said partially transmissive partially reflective lens (e.g. 14/36) is configured to be facing said eye (e.g. see figure 1 & 4), and to at least partially transmit incoming light of an outward scene to said eye (inter alia paragraph [0039] “user is capable of visually recognizing an image which is generated by an image display unit, and is also capable of visually recognizing an image of the outdoor scenes such as the scenery which is external to the HMD”); and an electro-optical unit (e.g. display device 100 & control device/controller 200), configured to be optically coupled with said partially transmissive partially reflective lens (inter alia paragraph [0039] “user is capable of visually recognizing an image which is generated by an image display unit, and is also capable of visually recognizing an image of the outdoor scenes such as the scenery which is external to the HMD”), said electro-optical unit including a light display (e.g. figure 3 image display unit 110) configured to project a light beam image onto said inner surface (e.g. see figures 3-4), so to enable reflection of said light beam image toward said eye (e.g. see figures 3-4), wherein said first optical power is configured to provide ophthalmic correction with respect to reflected said light beam image for viewing by said eye (implicit given function and structure e.g. inter alia paragraph [0039]), wherein said second optical power and said first progressive power, and said second progressive optical power are configured to provide ophthalmic correction with respect to transmitted said incoming light from said outward scene for viewing by said eye (axiomatic e.g. inter alia paragraph [0039]), as required by claim 1. Yonekubo further discloses said electro-optical unit (e.g. 100 & 200) includes four lenses (e.g. lenses 21, 22, 23 & 28), a reflector (e.g. mirror 16), as further required by claim 15.
Yonekubo does not disclose said electro-optical unit is configured to be located at a glabellar region of said user, as further required by claim 1; or a curved mirror, as further required by claim 15; or wherein said second lens is configured to produce an intermediate image at an intermediate image plane located at a position along an optical path between said second lens and said first lens, as required by claim 16; or further including an auxiliary reflector configured to fold said light beam image, said auxiliary reflector is positioned along said optical path between said second lens and said first lens, after said position of said intermediate image plane, as required by claim 17; or wherein said light beam image propagates along an optical path from said light display toward said reflector then toward said third lens, then toward said fourth lens, then toward said curved mirror, then again toward said fourth lens, then again toward said third lens, then toward said second lens, then toward said first lens, then toward said partially transmissive partially reflective lens, as required by claim 18; or wherein an optical arrangement of said curved mirror, said third lens, and said fourth lens enables said intermediate image to be aberration-compensated, as required by claim 19; or wherein said aberration-compensated said intermediate image is configured to forestall the effect of aberrations produced at least partially by said inner surface radius of curvature of said partially transmissive partially reflective lens, as required by claim 20.
Ashkenazi teaches a similar OST NED system (title e.g. figure 7A & 9) including a partially transmissive partially reflective lens (e.g. partially transmissive partially reflective lens 304) and an electro-optical unit (e.g. electro-optical unit 306) that includes a light display (e.g. image generator 340), a first lens (e.g. lens 350), a reflector (e.g. mirror 341), a second lens (e.g. lens 348), a third lens (e.g. lens 342), a fourth lens (e.g. lens 344); and further teaches said electro-optical unit (e.g. 306) is configured to be located at a glabellar region (e.g. glabellar region 280) of said user (paragraph [0052] “306 may substantially meet the spatial constraints of being located substantially at glabellar region 280 of user” see figure 7A); a curved mirror (e.g. curved mirror 346); wherein said second lens (e.g. 348) is configured to produce an intermediate image at an intermediate image plane located at a position along an optical path between said second lens and said first lens (e.g. paragraph [0057] “348 is optically configured and operative to form an intermediate image at an intermediate image plane 352 located at a position along an optical path between lens 348 and lens 350” see figure 9); and further including an auxiliary reflector (e.g. folding mirror 349) configured to fold said light beam image (axiomatic), said auxiliary reflector is positioned along said optical path between said second lens and said first lens (e.g. see figure 9), after said position of said intermediate image plane (e.g. see figure 9); or wherein said light beam image propagates along an optical path (e.g. see figure 9) from said light display (e.g. 340) toward said reflector (e.g. 341) then toward said third lens (e.g. 342), then toward said fourth lens (e.g. 344), then toward said curved mirror (e.g. 346), then again toward said fourth lens (e.g. 344), then again toward said third lens (e.g. 342), then toward said second lens (e.g. 348), then toward said first lens (e.g. 350), then toward said partially transmissive partially reflective lens (e.g. 304) wherein an optical arrangement (i.e. said path) of said curved mirror, said third lens, and said fourth lens enables said intermediate image to be aberration-compensated (inherent benefit that necessarily flows from the optical path, further see paragraph [0057] “[t]he formed intermediate image is an aberration-compensated image (or aberration-corrected image) owing to the optical arrangement (and optical characteristics) of curved mirror 344 and lenses 342 and 342”); and wherein said aberration-compensated said intermediate image is configured to forestall the effect of aberrations produced at least partially by said inner surface radius of curvature of said partially transmissive partially reflective lens (inherent benefit that necessarily flows from the optical path, further see paragraph [0057] “[t]his aberration-compensated formed intermediate image forestalls aberrations produced, at least partially, by the curvature of partially transmissive partially reflective lens 304, such that light rays incident upon and reflecting therefrom are aberration-corrected”). One would be motivated to substitute the electro-optical unit, including the elements having the optical path claimed for the purpose of minimizing the size, having a wide field of view with aberration compensation (inter alia paragraph [0057]) and by placing at the glabellar for the purpose of provides the user with both an unobstructed viewing capability of the visual environment within the user's field of regard as well as simultaneously enabling data to be presented (e.g., in the form of light encoded data, e.g., images, symbol data, text, graphics, etc.) within said field of regard (paragraph [0029]). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the OST NED system as disclosed by Yonekubo to have the electro-optical unit including the specific lenses and mirrors having the specified optical path and forming an intermediate image formed at the specified location and to be located at a glabellar region as taught by Ashkenazi for the purpose of for the purpose of minimizing the size, while having a wide field of view with aberration compensation and providing the user with both an unobstructed viewing capability of the visual environment within the user's field of regard as well as simultaneously enabling data to be presented within said field of regard.
Regarding claim 2 the combination of Yonekubo as modified by Ashkenazi discloses the OST NED system according to claim 1, as set forth above. Yonekubo further discloses wherein said outer surface includes an intermediate vision zone characterized by a third progressive optical power, said intermediate vision zone is located between said near vision zone and said distant vision zone (paragraph [0064] notes 36 may be a progressive focus lens, which by definition has a near vision zone that progressively transitions through an intermediate zone to a far vision zone).
Regarding claim 3 the combination of Yonekubo as modified by Ashkenazi discloses the OST NED system according to claim 1, as set forth above. Yonekubo further discloses wherein said inner surface is configured to exhibit a characteristic shape (inherent that a surface has a shape e.g. see figures 3-4) that defines a spherical power and a cylindrical power (axiomatic that the shape of a reflective surface defines some power e.g. a flat reflecting surface has zero power, a concave reflecting surface has a positive focusing power and a convex reflecting surface has a negative focusing power).
Regarding claim 4 the combination of Yonekubo as modified by Ashkenazi discloses the OST NED system according to claim 1, as set forth above. Yonekubo further discloses wherein said inner surface is configured to correct a display focus of said electro-optical unit to distant vision of said user (implicit given inter alia paragraph [0095] “the position in the depth direction of the virtual image can be optimized in a case in which a viewer sees a distant landscape”).
Regarding claim 5 the combination of Yonekubo as modified by Ashkenazi discloses the OST NED system according to claim 1, as set forth above. Yonekubo further discloses wherein said light display projects said light beam image onto said inner surface such to be focused at a far distance or infinity (implicit given inter alia paragraph [0095] “the position in the depth direction of the virtual image can be optimized in a case in which a viewer sees a distant landscape”).
Regarding claim 6 the combination of Yonekubo as modified by Ashkenazi discloses the OST NED system according to claim 1, as set forth above. Yonekubo further discloses wherein said outer surface is characterized by a front surface base curvature and a rear surface base curvature, wherein said front surface base curvature, said rear surface base curvature, and an index of refraction of said partially transmissive partially reflective lens define an optical power of said outer surface (e.g. 14/36 is a lens).
Regarding claim 7 the combination of Yonekubo as modified by Ashkenazi discloses the OST NED system according to claim 1, as set forth above. Yonekubo further discloses wherein said distant vision zone is located at an upper area of said partially transmissive partially reflective lens, and said near vision zone is located at a lower area of said partially transmissive partially reflective lens (implicit since this is the standard configuration of a progressive lens, as evidenced by Wikipedia page 1 third sentence page 2 “distance prescription at the top of the lens … reading addition, at the bottom of the lens” & line 10 “lenses with distance and reading power centers in the upper and lower part of the lens, respectively”).
Regarding claim 8 the combination of Yonekubo as modified by Ashkenazi discloses the OST NED system according to claim 1, as set forth above. Yonekubo further discloses wherein said a distant vison zone base curvature of said distant vision zone is configured to correct power for far distance ophthalmic vision of said user (axiomatic), wherein a near vision zone base curvature of said near vision zone is configured to correct power for near distance ophthalmic vision of said user (axiomatic).
Regarding claim 9 the combination of Yonekubo as modified by Ashkenazi discloses the OST NED system according to claim 2, as set forth above. Yonekubo further discloses wherein an intermediate vision zone base curvature of said intermediate vision zone is configured to correct for intermediate distance ophthalmic vision of said user (axiomatic).
Regarding claim 10 the combination of Yonekubo as modified by Ashkenazi discloses the OST NED system according to claim 2, as set forth above. Yonekubo further discloses wherein said third progressive optical power is greater than said second progressive optical power, and lower than said first progressive optical power (implicit since power in intermediate region i.e. region that has a gradient of power between near and far zones and power in far vision zone would have negative diopters while power in near vision zone would have positive diopters).
Regarding claim 11 the combination of Yonekubo as modified by Ashkenazi discloses the OST NED system according to claim 6, as set forth above. Yonekubo further discloses wherein said front surface base curvature and said rear surface base curvature are defined (inherently that in a NED that surfaces and curvatures of a lens are “defined” and not random).
Regarding claim 12 the combination of Yonekubo as modified by Ashkenazi discloses the OST NED system according to claim 1, as set forth above. Yonekubo further discloses wherein said near vision zone and said distant vision zone are formed to have a continuous gradient of refractive power, in transition therebetween (implicit feature of a progressive lens as opposed to a bifocal or trifocal, as evidenced by Wikipedia page 1 second sentence “characterised by a gradient of increasing lens power” and page 3 lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 13 the combination of Yonekubo as modified by Ashkenazi discloses the OST NED system according to claim 2, as set forth above. Yonekubo further discloses wherein said near vision zone, said distant vision zone, and said intermediate vision zone are formed to have a continuous gradient of refractive power, in transition therebetween (implicit feature of a progressive lens as opposed to a bifocal or trifocal, as evidenced by Wikipedia page 1 second sentence “characterised by a gradient of increasing lens power” and page 3 lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 14 the combination of Yonekubo as modified by Ashkenazi discloses the OST NED system according to claim 1, as set forth above. Yonekubo further discloses wherein said electro-optical unit (e.g. 100 & 200) further includes a processor (e.g. controller 200).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fateh US Patent Application Publication 2016/0133170; in regards to a similar OST NED that reflects a virtual image off of a combiner, see figure 1, which may include progressive optical lenses, see paragraph [0067].
Schuck US Patent Application Publication 2023/0185090; in regards to a similar OST NED, see figure 8B, which may include progressive optical lenses, see figure 8E.
Lee et al. US Patent Application Publication 2026/0033712; in regards to a similar OST NED, see paragraph [0016], which may include progressive optical lenses, see figure 39.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to George G King whose telephone number is (303)297-4273. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571) 272-2333. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/George G. King/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 July 8, 2026
Prosecution Insights