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
Accordingly, the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/16/2025 has been considered by the examiner, to the extent possible in view of the long list of documents. The Applicants should note that it is desirable to avoid the submission of long lists of documents if it can be avoided. For example, eliminate clearly irrelevant and only marginally pertinent information, and especially cumulative information. If a long list is submitted, a highlight of those documents brought to the Applicants’ attention and/or are known to be of most significance would be helpful to avoid possibly missing such a significant reference. [See Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc., 359 F. Supp. 948, 175 USPQ 260 (S.D. Fla. 1972), aff’d, 479 F.2d 1338, 178 USPQ 577 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 874 (1974). But cf. Molins PLC v. Textron Inc., 48 F.3d 1172, 33 USPQ2d 1823 (Fed. Cir. 1995).]
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 10,442,995. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the rewording of the limitations “display panel” and “lens surface” as claimed in the instant application from a “curved display panel” and a “curved lens surface” removal of the limitations “a see-through display…overlaid on a see-through view of the surrounding environment” renders claims 1-17 as broadened and obvious variants of claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 10,442,995.
Claims 1-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,226,489. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the rewording of the limitations “display panel” and “lens surface” as claimed in the instant application from a “curved display panel” and a “curved lens surface” removal of the limitations “a see-through display…overlaid on a see-through view of the surrounding environment” renders claims 1-17 as broadened and obvious variants of claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,226,489.
Claims 1-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,668,939. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the rewording of the limitations “display panel” and “lens surface” as claimed in the instant application from a “curved display panel” and a “curved lens surface” removal of the limitations “a see-through display…overlaid on a see-through view of the surrounding environment” renders claims 1-17 as broadened and obvious variants of claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,668,939.
Claims 1-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,971,554. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the rewording of the limitations “emission surface” and “lens surface” as claimed in the instant application from “curved emission surface” and “curved lens surface” and the removal of the limitations “the curved emission surface is configured to transmit image light…an environment associated with the optical system” renders claims 1-17 of the instant application as broadened and obvious variants of claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,971,554.
Claims 1-17 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,222,513. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the rewording of the limitations “emission surface” and “lens surface” as claimed in the instant application from “curved emission surface” and “curved lens surface” and the removal of the limitations “the curved emission surface is configured to transmit image light…an environment associated with the optical system” renders claims 1-17 of the instant application as broadened and obvious variants of claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,222,513.
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 1-5, 7-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cobb (US 2002/0196554; already of record).
Regarding claim 1, Cobb discloses, an optical system (Figs. 1-2a) comprising:
a display panel (see 56, 68, 84) located on an optical axis, the display panel comprising an emission surface (see 56, 68, 84), the emission surface including a first emission surface point where the optical axis intersects the emission surface (see Fig. 2a), the emission surface having a first radius of curvature at the first emission surface point (see Fig. 2a);
a lens (30) located on the optical axis (see Fig. 2a), the lens comprising a lens surface (see 30), the lens surface including a first lens surface point (see Fig. 2a), the lens surface having a second radius of curvature at the first lens surface point (see Fig. 2a), wherein:
the emission surface comprises a first side of the display panel (see Figs. 1 and 2a), wherein the first side of the display panel is proximal to the lens (see Figs. 1 and 2a),
the lens surface comprises a first side of the lens (see Figs. 1 and 2a), wherein the first side of the lens is proximal to the display panel (see Figs. 1 and 2a), and
the second radius of curvature at the first lens surface point is substantially equal to the first radius of curvature at the first emission surface point (see Figs. 1 and 2a); and
an optical element (92) on the optical axis and between the first emission surface point and the first lens surface point (see Figs. 1 and 2a), wherein the optical axis traverses the first emission surface point and the first lens surface point (see Figs. 1 and 2a),
wherein the emission surface is configured to transmit image light from the display panel through the lens surface (Para. 0045 and see Figs. 1 and 2a).
PNG
media_image1.png
580
639
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 2 and 14, Cobb discloses, the emission surface includes a second emission surface point (see Figs. 1 and 2a), the lens surface of the lens includes a second lens surface point (see Figs. 1 and 2a), the first emission surface point and the first lens surface point are separated by a first distance (see Figs. 1 and 2a), and the second emission surface point and the second lens surface point are separated by a second distance substantially equal to the first distance between the first emission surface point and the first lens surface point (see Figs. 1 and 2a).
Regarding claims 3 and 9, Cobb discloses, first points of the emission surface and second points of the lens surface of the lens are separated by substantially constant distances (see Figs. 1 and 2a).
Regarding claims 4, 10 and 15, Cobb discloses, the emission surface and the lens surface of the lens are substantially the same in shape (see Figs. 1 and 2a).
Regarding claims 5 and 11, Cobb discloses, the emission surface and the lens surface of the lens are not substantially the same in shape (see 18, 30 of Fig. 6).
Regarding claims 7, 12 and 17, Cobb discloses, the display panel comprises a display panel comprising the emission surface (see 18 of Fig. 6).
Regarding claims 8, Cobb discloses, a method of manufacturing an optical system (Figs. 1 and 2a), comprising:
providing a display panel (see 56, 68, 84);
locating the display panel on an optical axis (Figs. 1 and 2a), wherein the display panel comprises an emission surface (see 56, 68, 84), the emission surface including a first emission surface point where the optical axis intersects the emission surface (see Figs. 1 and 2a), the emission surface having a first radius of curvature at the first emission surface point (see Figs. 1 and 2a);
providing a lens (30);
locating the lens on the optical axis (see Figs. 1 and 2a), wherein the lens has a lens surface, the lens surface including a first lens surface point (see Figs. 1 and 2a), the lens surface having a second radius of curvature at the first lens surface point (see Figs. 1 and 2a), wherein:
the emission surface comprises a first side of the display panel (see Figs. 1 and 2a), wherein the first side of the display panel is proximal to the lens (see Figs. 1 and 2a),
the lens surface comprises a first side of the lens (see Figs. 1 and 2a), wherein the first side of the lens is proximal to the display panel (see Figs. 1 and 2a), and
the second radius of curvature is substantially equal to the first radius of curvature at the first emission surface point (see Figs. 1 and 2a); and
providing an optical element (92) on the optical axis and between the first emission surface point and the first lens surface point (see Figs. 1 and 2a), wherein the optical axis traverses the first emission surface point and the first lens surface point (see Figs. 1 and 2a),
wherein the emission surface is configured to transmit image light from the display panel through the lens surface (Para. 0045 and see Figs. 1 and 2a).
Regarding claims 13, Cobb discloses, a method of operating an optical system (see Figs. 1 and 2a), wherein the optical system comprises:
a display panel (see 56, 68, 84) located on an optical axis, the display panel comprising an emission surface (see 56, 68, 84), the emission surface including a first emission surface point where the optical axis intersects the emission surface (see Figs. 1 and 2a), the emission surface having a first radius of curvature at the first emission surface point (see Figs. 1 and 2a);
a lens (30) located on the optical axis (see Figs. 1 and 2a), the lens comprising a lens surface (see Figs. 1 and 2a), the lens surface including a first lens surface point (see Figs. 1 and 2a), the lens surface having a second radius of curvature at the first lens surface point (see Figs. 1 and 2a), wherein:
the emission surface comprises a first side of the display panel (see Figs. 1 and 2a), wherein the first side of the display panel is proximal to the lens (see Figs. 1 and 2a),
the lens surface comprises a first side of the lens, wherein the first side of the lens is proximal to the display panel (see Figs. 1 and 2a), and
the second radius of curvature at the first lens surface point is substantially equal to the first radius of curvature at the first emission surface point (see Figs. 1 and 2a); and
an optical element (92) on the optical axis and between the first emission surface point and the first lens surface point (see Figs. 1 and 2a), wherein the optical axis traverses the first emission surface point and the first lens surface point (see Figs. 1 and 2a), wherein the method comprises:
transmitting, via the emission surface, image light from the display panel through the lens surface (Para. 0045 and see Figs. 1 and 2a).
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 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cobb (US 2002/0196554; already of record) as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, in view of Border et al. (US 9,091,851; already of record).
Cobb remains as applied to claims 1 and 13 above.
Cobb does not disclose the curved emission surface is configured to transmit image light from the display panel through the curved lens surface to present augmented reality content associated with an environment associated with the optical system.
Border teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in an optical system that it would have been desirable to make the curved emission surface is configured to transmit image light from the display panel through the curved lens surface to present augmented reality content associated with an environment associated with the optical system (Col. 7, lines 61-67 and Col. 8, lines 1-24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the curved emission surface is configured to transmit image light from the display panel through the curved lens surface to present augmented reality content associated with an environment associated with the optical system as taught by the optical system of Border in the optical system of Cobb since Border teaches it is known to include these features in an optical system for the purpose of providing an optical system with enhanced contrast and reduced size.
Regarding claim 16, Cobb in view of Border discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Border further teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in an optical system that it would have been obvious to make presenting, via the transmitted image light, augmented reality content associated with the environment (Col. 7, lines 61-67 and Col. 8, lines 1-24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the optical system of Border in the optical system of Cobb since Border teaches it is known to include these features in an optical system for the purpose of providing an optical system with enhanced contrast and reduced size.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAWAYNE A PINKNEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1305. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, 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.
/DAWAYNE PINKNEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 09/02/2026
Prosecution Insights