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 1-4, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gao et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0109343).
Consider claim 1. Gao et al. discloses an optical support system for augmented reality (AR) eyewear, comprising: a monocular chassis configured to support a projector and a waveguide of the AR eyewear (abstract describes head mounted displays for displaying augmented reality content; para. 0045 describes a monocular frame configured to support a projector and a waveguide), the monocular chassis being of a unitary construction (fig. 3 shows the monocular chassis being of a unitary construction) and including as part of the monocular chassis: one or more integrated alignment features for positioning the projector relative to the waveguide in the AR eyewear; and a waveguide mount for mounting the waveguide to the monocular chassis (para. 0045 describes positioning the projector relative to the waveguide in the AR eyewear; and a waveguide mount for mounting the waveguide to the monocular frame).
Consider claim 2. Gao et al. discloses the optical support system of claim 1, wherein the one or more integrated alignment features include one or more datum faces for positioning an illumination sub-assembly of the projector relative to the monocular chassis (para. 0065 describes alignment features include surfaces for positioning an illumination sub-assembly of the projector relative to the monocular frame).
Consider claim 3. Gao et al. discloses the optical support system of claim 2, wherein the one or more datum faces are configured to position a polarizing beam splitter (PBS) of the illumination sub-assembly of the projector with the PBS sitting in abutment with the one or more datum faces (para. 0048 describes positioning a polarizing beam splitter of the illumination sub-assembly of the projector with the PBS sitting in abutment with one or more surfaces).
Consider claim 4. Gao et al. discloses the optical support system of claim 2, wherein the one or more datum faces position the illumination sub-assembly of the projector relative to an imaging sub-assembly of the projector (para. 0044 describes a reflective surface position the illumination sub-assembly of the projector relative to an imaging sub-assembly of the projector).
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected using similar reasoning as corresponding claims above.
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0109343) in view of Official Notice.
Consider claim 14. Gao et al. discloses all claimed limitations as stated above, except wherein the waveguide is secured to the waveguide mount with adhesive tape.
However, the examiner takes official notice that it is well known to use adhesive tape to attach item to one another.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, wherein the waveguide is secured to the waveguide mount with adhesive tape, in order to stick things together.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-13 and 15 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.
Claims 21-29 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The present invention is directed to an optical support system for augmented reality eyewear. Independent claim 21 uniquely recites the distinct features, “inserting a lens into a lens alignment bore of the monocular chassis; securing a Light-Emitting Diode (LED) housing of a projector system to a rear of the monocular chassis; positioning a polarizing beam splitter (PBS) against a datum face of the monocular chassis; stacking a pupil lens and a waveplate in an alignment recess of the monocular chassis; positioning a display panel to focus an image therein and securing in a focused position the display panel to alignment rails of the monocular chassis; and attaching a waveguide to the monocular chassis.” The prior art does not anticipate or render the above underlined obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mishawn N Hunter whose telephone number is (571)272-7635. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-4pm.
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, Thai Tran can be reached at 571-272-7382. 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.
/MISHAWN N. HUNTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2484
Prosecution Insights