DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1, 6-7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cranton et al. (US 20220268970, hereinafter “Cranton”).
Regarding claim 1, Cranton discloses a head-mounted display (HMD) (Figs. 1-2, 5, 12 and 25; see Paras. [0026]-[0027], [0029], [0033], [0051], [0070] and [0079] identifying the embodiment shown in Figs. 1, 5, 12 and 25) comprising:
a display (211, 231 in Fig. 2; Para. [0046] “The light engine 211 can output a display light 290 representative of display content to be viewed by a user. The display light 290 can be redirected by an optical redirector 231 towards an eye 291 of the user”) configured to generate display light that includes virtual images; and
a digressive lens (520 in Fig. 5; see Para. [0063] teaching 520 is eye-side lens portions for the head-up display, and Para. [0079] “Exemplary lens portions can also include regressive lens portions, which refers to an optical power add in a spatially upper area of the lens portion relative to a spatially lower area of the lens portion” teaching lens portions being a digressive lens with spatially varying optical power) configured to provide spatially varying optical power to focus the virtual images to an eyebox region (see Para. [0094] teaching optical power selected to focus the display light to produce a virtual display at a desired perceived distance and see Paras. [0046] and [0070] regarding the eyebox), wherein a lower region of the digressive lens has a less positive optical power than an upper region of the digressive lens (Paras. [0063] “eye-side lens portions 520” and [0079] “Exemplary lens portions can also include regressive lens portions, which refers to an optical power add in a spatially upper area of the lens portion relative to a spatially lower area of the lens portion”).
Regarding claim 6, Cranton discloses a display system (Figs. 1-2, 5, 12 and 25; see Paras. [0026]-[0027], [0029], [0033], [0051] and [0070] identifying the embodiment shown in Figs. 1, 5, 12 and 25) comprising:
a display (211, 231 in Fig. 2; Para. [0046] “The light engine 211 can output a display light 290 representative of display content to be viewed by a user. The display light 290 can be redirected by an optical redirector 231 towards an eye 291 of the user”) configured to generate display light; and
a digressive lens (520 in Fig. 5; see Para. [0063] teaching 520 being eye-side lens portions for the head-up display, and see Para. [0079] “Exemplary lens portions can also include regressive lens portions, which refers to an optical power add in a spatially upper area of the lens portion relative to a spatially lower area of the lens portion” teaching lens portions being a digressive lens with spatially varying optical power) configured to provide spatially varying optical power to focus the display light to an eyebox region (see Para. [0094] teaching optical power selected to focus the display light to produce a virtual display at a desired perceived distance and see Paras. [0046] and [0070] regarding the eyebox).
Regarding claim 7, Cranton discloses the limitations of claim 6 above, and further teaches wherein a lower region of the digressive lens has a less positive optical power than an upper region of the digressive lens (Paras. [0063] “eye-side lens portions 520” and [0079] “Exemplary lens portions can also include regressive lens portions, which refers to an optical power add in a spatially upper area of the lens portion relative to a spatially lower area of the lens portion”).
Regarding claim 13, Cranton discloses the limitations of claim 7 above, and further discloses wherein the lower region is in a nose-ward region of the digressive lens that is beneath the upper region of the digressive lens (Figs. 1 and 12).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 4-5 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cranton.
Regarding claim 4, Cranton discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
In the Figure 12 embodiment and discussion in Paragraph [0079], Cranton does not explicitly disclose an optical power difference between the lower region of the digressive lens and the upper region of the digressive lens is less than 1.5 diopters.
In the Figure 17 embodiment, however, Cranton teaches providing one-eighth or one-quarter of a diopter of optical power difference between different regions for a smooth transition (Paras. [0081]-[0082]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Figure 12 embodiment as disclosed by Cranton, wherein an optical power difference between the lower region of the digressive lens and the upper region of the digressive lens is less than 1.5 diopters, for the purpose of maintaining a smooth transition (Cranton: Para. [0081]).
Regarding claim 5, Cranton discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Cranton does not explicitly disclose the lower region of the digressive lens is associated with a lower gaze angle of a user of the HMD for viewing near-field regions of the virtual images, and wherein the upper region of the digressive lens is associated with a higher gaze angle of the user of the HMD for viewing far-field regions of the virtual images.
However, Cranton teaches the relationship between an optical power and a viewing for heads-up displays (Para. [0075]), and that a multi-focal lens provides an optical power add suitable for the viewing based on where a user is looking (Para. [0075]).
Because a user of the HMD has a lower gaze angle for viewing near-field regions and a higher gaze angle for viewing far-field regions (see Para. [0075] describing airplane pilots, for example), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the head-mounted display as disclosed by Cranton, wherein the lower region of the digressive lens is associated with a lower gaze angle of a user of the HMD for viewing near-field regions of the virtual images, and wherein the upper region of the digressive lens is associated with a higher gaze angle of the user of the HMD for viewing far-field regions of the virtual images, for the purpose of providing suitable viewings for a user (Cranton: Para. [0075]).
Regarding claim 11, Cranton discloses the limitations of claim 7 above.
In the Figure 12 embodiment and discussion in Paragraph [0079], Cranton does not explicitly disclose an optical power difference between the lower region of the digressive lens and the upper region of the digressive lens is 5 diopters or less.
In the Figure 17 embodiment, however, Cranton teaches providing one-eighth or one-quarter of a diopter of optical power difference between different regions for a smooth transition (Paras. [0081]-[0082]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Figure 12 embodiment as disclosed by Cranton, wherein an optical power difference between the lower region of the digressive lens and the upper region of the digressive lens is 5 diopters or less, for the purpose of maintaining a smooth transition (Cranton: Para. [0081]).
Regarding claim 12, Cranton discloses the limitations of claim 11 above.
In the Figure 12 embodiment and discussion in Paragraph [0079], Cranton does not explicitly disclose there is a gradual change in optical power from the lower region to the upper region.
However, Cranton teaches providing a gradual change in optical power from the lower region to the upper region (Para. [0080]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Figure 12 embodiment as disclosed by Cranton, wherein there is a gradual change in optical power from the lower region to the upper region, for the purpose of maintaining a smooth transition (Cranton: Para. [0081]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 and 8-10 are 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:
Regarding claim 2, Cranton discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses a progressive lens configured to cancel out a lens for scene light that would encounter the progressive lens and then the lens (see 510 in Fig. 5 and 2410 in Fig. 25 and see Para. [0079] “Such lens portions … can include a continuous change in optical power over at least one area of a lens portion. Exemplary varifocal lens portions can include progressive lens portions, which refers to an optical power add in a spatially lower area of the lens portion relative to a spatially upper area of the lens portion” teaching a case where a progressive lens having a continuous change is also used and see Para. [0103] “the optical power of region 2512 will effectively cancel out the optical power of region 2422 with respect to environmental light which the user sees” teaching 2410 effectively cancelling out 2420 for environmental light).
However, Cranton does not explicitly disclose, in light of the specification, “the progressive lens configured to cancel out the digressive lens for scene light that would encounter the progressive lens and then the digressive lens”, because Cranton teaches using a progressive lens or a digressive lens but does not necessarily disclose using a progressive lens and a digressive lens in which a progressive lens configured to cancel out a digressive lens for scene light that would encounter the progressive lens and then the digressive lens.
The examiner further considered Mori et al. (US 20150055083, hereinafter “Mori), Herbert et al. (US 11719960, hereinafter “Herbert”), Braunger (US 20230296921) and Stevens et al. (US 20210132387, hereinafter “Stevens”). For example, Mori teaches providing an outer surface degressive addition lens including a progressive element in the inner surface, and including a degressive element in the outer surface (Paras. [0138], [0145]), but does not explicitly disclose the progressive lens configured to cancel out the digressive lens for scene light that would encounter the progressive lens and then the digressive lens. Mori, Herbert, Stevens, Cranton and Braunger, applied alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the combination and arrangement of elements recited in Applicant's claim 2.
Dependent claim 3 is allowable by virtue of their dependence on claim 2.
Regarding claim 8, Cranton discloses the limitations of claim 7 above, and further discloses a progressive lens configured to cancel out a lens for scene light that would encounter the progressive lens and then the lens (see 510 in Fig. 5 and 2410 in Fig. 25 and see Para. [0079] “Such lens portions … can include a continuous change in optical power over at least one area of a lens portion. Exemplary varifocal lens portions can include progressive lens portions, which refers to an optical power add in a spatially lower area of the lens portion relative to a spatially upper area of the lens portion” teaching a case where a progressive lens having a continuous change is also used and see Para. [0103] “the optical power of region 2512 will effectively cancel out the optical power of region 2422 with respect to environmental light which the user sees” teaching 2410 effectively cancelling out 2420 for environmental light).
However, Cranton does not explicitly disclose, in light of the specification, “the progressive lens configured to cancel out the digressive lens for scene light that would encounter the progressive lens and then the digressive lens”, because Cranton teaches using a progressive lens or a digressive lens but does not necessarily disclose using a progressive lens and a digressive lens in which a progressive lens configured to cancel out a digressive lens for scene light that would encounter the progressive lens and then the digressive lens.
The examiner further considered Mori, Herbert, Braunger and Stevens. For example, Mori teaches providing an outer surface degressive addition lens including a progressive element in the inner surface, and including a degressive element in the outer surface (Paras. [0138], [0145]), but does not explicitly disclose the progressive lens configured to cancel out the digressive lens for scene light that would encounter the progressive lens and then the digressive lens. The prior art of Mori, Herbert, Stevens, Braunger and Cranton, applied alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the combination and arrangement of elements recited in Applicant's claim 8.
Dependent claims 9-10 are allowable by virtue of their dependence on claim 8.
Claims 14-20 are allowable over prior art.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 14, Cranton discloses a lens assembly (Figs. 1-2, 5, 12 and 25; see Paras. [0026]-[0027], [0029], [0033], [0051] and [0070] identifying the embodiment shown in Figs. 1, 5, 12 and 25) comprising:
a digressive lens curvature (the curvature of 520 in Fig. 5 and see Para. [0063] teaching 520 being eye-side lens portions for the head-up display, and see Para. [0079] “Exemplary lens portions can also include regressive lens portions, which refers to an optical power add in a spatially upper area of the lens portion relative to a spatially lower area of the lens portion” teaching lens portions being a digressive lens with spatially varying optical power) configured to provide spatially varying optical power (Paras. [0070], [0079]); or
a world-side progressive lens curvature disposed on an eyeward side of the lens assembly opposite a world-side of the lens assembly (see the curvature of 510 in Fig. 5 and 2410 in Fig. 25 and see Para. [0079] “Such lens portions … can include a continuous change in optical power over at least one area of a lens portion. Exemplary varifocal lens portions can include progressive lens portions, which refers to an optical power add in a spatially lower area of the lens portion relative to a spatially upper area of the lens portion” teaching a case where a progressive lens having a continuous change is also used and see Para. [0103] “the optical power of region 2512 will effectively cancel out the optical power of region 2422 with respect to environmental light which the user sees” teaching 2410 effectively cancelling out 2420 for environmental light).
However, Cranton does not explicitly disclose, in light of the specification, “the digressive lens curvature and the world-side progressive lens curvature disposed on an eyeward side of the lens assembly opposite a world-side of the lens assembly” because Cranton teaches using a progressive lens or a digressive lens but does not necessarily disclose using a progressive lens and a digressive lens in which the digressive lens curvature and the world-side progressive lens curvature disposed on an eyeward side of the lens assembly opposite a world-side of the lens assembly.
The examiner further considered Mori, Herbert, Braunger and Stevens. For example, Mori teaches providing an outer surface degressive addition lens including a progressive element in the inner surface, and including a degressive element in the outer surface (Paras. [0138], [0145]), but does not explicitly disclose the digressive lens curvature and the world-side progressive lens curvature disposed on an eyeward side of the lens assembly opposite a world-side of the lens assembly. The prior art of Mori, Herbert, Stevens, Braunger and Cranton, applied alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the combination and arrangement of elements recited in Applicant's claim 14.
Dependent claims 15-20 are allowable by virtue of their dependence on claim 14.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN Y JUNG whose telephone number is (469)295-9076. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael H Caley can be reached on (571)272-2286. 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.
/JONATHAN Y JUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights