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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statement dated 2/14/2025 is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it uses legalese - i.e. it is an almost verbatim copy of claim 1 and 11. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Edwin (20210105456).
Regarding claim 1, Edwin discloses a personal immersive display apparatus (Fig 2, [0166], wearable system 200) comprising: a left-eye display configured to display a left-eye image (Fig 3, [0179], projecting subsystem 318 (which may project light into user's eyes 302,via a scanned laser arrangement in a manner similar to a retinal scanning display)); and a right-eye display configured to display a right-eye image (Fig 3, [0179], projecting subsystem 318 (which may project light into user's eyes, 304 via a scanned laser arrangement in a manner similar to a retinal scanning display)), wherein a left-eye active time where the left-eye image is written in the left-eye display is asynchronized with a right-eye active time where the right-eye image is written in the right-eye display ([0219], the system may create or dynamically reposition and/or reorient one render camera for the user's left eye, and another render camera for the user's right eye, as the user's eyes are physically separated from one another and thus consistently positioned at different locations).
Regarding claim 11, Edwin discloses a method of a personal immersive display apparatus (Fig 2, [0166], wearable system 200), the driving method comprising: displaying a left-eye image by using a left-eye display (Fig 3, [0179], projecting subsystem 318 (which may project light into user's eyes 302,via a scanned laser arrangement in a manner similar to a retinal scanning display));; and displaying a right-eye image by using a right-eye display (Fig 3, [0179], projecting subsystem 318 (which may project light into user's eyes, 304 via a scanned laser arrangement in a manner similar to a retinal scanning display)), wherein a left-eye active time where the left-eye image is written in the left-eye display is asynchronized with a right-eye active time where the right-eye image is written in the right-eye display ([0219], the system may create or dynamically reposition and/or reorient one render camera for the user's left eye, and another render camera for the user's right eye, as the user's eyes are physically separated from one another and thus consistently positioned at different locations).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-10 and 12-14 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: with respect to the allowable subject matter, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach of the claimed combination of limitations to warrant a rejection under 35 USC 102 or 103.
Specifically, with respect to dependent claim 2, the prior art of Edwin taken either singly or in combination with any other prior art fails to suggest such a personal immersive display apparatus including the specific arrangement: “wherein a left-eye blank time where writing of the left-eye image in the left-eye display stops is asynchronized with a right-eye blank time where writing of the right-eye image in the right-eye display stops”. Claims 3-10 are allowable due to pendency on dependent claim 2.
Specifically, with respect to dependent claim 12, the prior art of Edwin taken either singly or in combination with any other prior art fails to suggest such a driving method of a personal immersive display apparatus including the specific arrangement: “wherein a left-eye blank time where writing of the left-eye image in the left-eye display stops is asynchronized with a right-eye blank time where writing of the right-eye image in the right-eye display stops”. Claims 13-14 are allowable due to pendency on dependent claim 12.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kawamae (20220060680), Perez (9323325), and Brin (20130038510) are examples of an eyewear system that utilizes the tracking alignment between right and left displays.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sharrief I Broome whose telephone number is (571)272-3454. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm, EST.
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.
Sharrief I. Broome
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/SHARRIEF I BROOME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights