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 .
Notice of Amendment
In response to the amendment filed on 10/14/2025, new claims 2-20 are acknowledged. Claims 1-20 remain pending.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
No claim limitation has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7-14, 17-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ansari et al. (US Patent No. 6,704,588 B2) (cited by Applicant), further in view of Byrd et al. (US Publication No. 2016/0256086 A1) (cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 1, Ansari et al. discloses a user-wearable device comprising:
a frame (150) configured to mount on a user (see Figure 7 and col. 10, lines 3-6 – “With reference to FIGS. 7 and 8, the apparatus 10 is preferably arranged on a rigid head mount such as a headband 150 that rigidly positions a substrate 152 in close proximity to the monitored eye 12” and lines 44-47 – “Instead of the illustrated headband 150, a helmet or other apparatus which rigidly mounts to the subject's head can be used. A head-mounted arrangement is particularly suitable for self-monitoring”);
a light source (30) configured to provide light to the eye of the user (see Figures 1 and 8 and col. 3, lines 42-51 – “With continuing reference to FIG. 1, the apparatus 10 includes a light source 30 that produces substantially collimated light 32. The light source 30 is preferably a multiple-wavelength light source. In FIG. 1, a multi-wavelength laser is employed. However, it is also contemplated to use other light sources that produce light at a plurality of wavelengths, such as: a white light source coupled with an optical collimator and one or more wavelength-selective filters; a mercury, sodium, or other type of arc discharge lamp; one or more light emitting diodes (LEDs); and the like”);
a light analyzer (60, 70) configured to analyze the light reflected from the eye of the user (see Figures 1, 4, and 8 and col. 5, lines 4-14 – “The exiting light 54 is characterized by analyzing optics 60. A beam-splitter 62 splits the exiting light 54 into first and second beams 64, 66. The first beam 64 is analyzed by a path length detector, such as a low-coherence interferometric detector 68 which extracts the optical path length, while the second beam 66 is analyzed by a polarization analyzer or detector 70. The polarization analyzer 70 preferably extracts amplitude and phase information for both the p-polarization component and the s-polarization component of the second beam 66, e.g. in a Jones matrix or other suitable format”); and
processing electronics (90) in communication with the light analyzer, the processing electronics configured to determine a glucose level of the user based at least in part on light reflected from the eye of the user, the processing electronics configured to determine the glucose level of the user automatically for at least a period of time (see col. 5, lines 36-38 – “A glucose level processor 90 computes a polarization rotation α and an optical path length Lλ. from measurements of the analyzing optics 60”).
It is noted Ansari et al. does not specifically teach a display attached to the frame, the display configured to direct virtual images to an eye of the user. However, Byrd et al. teaches a display (316, 318) attached to the frame, the display configured to direct virtual images to an eye of the user (see Figures 3 and 4B and [0062] – “In some examples, the device 302 can further include a display device 316 to provide information via a display area 318 on a lens of the eyeglasses. In various examples, the device 302 can use the display area to provide indications of biological conditions” and [0066] – “FIG. 4B also illustrates an example output to display area 318. In the illustrated example, the display area 318 contains biological condition data (i.e., “121 mg/dL”) and simplified biological condition data (i.e., “Good!”). In some examples, the output to the display area 318 can include only the simplified biological condition data. In various examples, the display area 318 can pulse a color signifying a biological condition state such as, for example, green for a satisfactory state, yellow for a threshold state, and/or red for a state requiring attention. Although colors are discussed, any appropriate feedback to convey biological condition states is contemplated”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ansari et al. to include a display attached to the frame, the display configured to direct virtual images to an eye of the user, as disclosed in Byrd et al., so as to convey the determined glucose level to the user (see Byrd et al.: [0066]).
Regarding claim 7, Ansari et al. teaches the processing electronics are configured to communicate with the user or with a clinician (see Figure 1 showing the displayed glucose level). Byrd et al. also teaches the processing electronics are configured to communicate with the user or with a clinician (see [0024] – “In at least one example, the client-wearable device(s) 102 and the other client device(s) 104 can be associated with at least one user for which the techniques provide lifestyle management. In at least one example, the third party device(s) 106 can provide access to the lifestyle management information for the at least one user for medical professionals, relatives, and/or other parties given access to the lifestyle management information” and [0052] – “In some examples, the format of the data produced by the biological condition correlation module 216 can be different depending on who the biological condition data is to be sent to. For example, a user of the device 200 can receive a more simplified indication of the biological condition e.g., “good,” “ask your doctor if these results merit further testing,” “seek medical assistance immediately”) whereas a medical professional or developer can receive more detailed information regarding one or more of the biological condition, the underlying bioelectric signal, or the collected signal. In some examples, the device 200 can contact emergency medical assistance, with or without the user's authorization depending on the determined rest its of the biological condition correlation”).
Regarding claim 8, Ansari et al. teaches the processing electronics are configured to communicate the determined glucose level to the user or clinician (see Figure 1 showing the displayed glucose level). Byrd et al. also teaches the processing electronics are configured to communicate the determined glucose level to the user or clinician (see [0066] – “FIG. 4B also illustrates an example output to display area 318. In the illustrated example, the display area 318 contains biological condition data (i.e., “121 mg/dL”) and simplified biological condition data (i.e., “Good!”).
Regarding claim 9, Ansari et al. teaches the processing electronics are configured to communicate with the user via the display (see Figure 1 showing the displayed glucose level). Byrd et al. also teaches the processing electronics are configured to communicate with the user via the display (see [0066] – “FIG. 4B also illustrates an example output to display area 318. In the illustrated example, the display area 318 contains biological condition data (i.e., “121 mg/dL”) and simplified biological condition data (i.e., “Good!”).
Regarding claim 10, Byrd et al. teaches the processing electronics are configured to communicate with the user via a display separate from the display (see [0062] – “The device 302 can additionally or alternatively communicate biological condition information or bioelectric signal data to another device for display at the other device. For example, a device 302 including the described eyeglasses can communicate bioelectric signal data via Bluetooth to a user's smartphone for one or more of digital signal processing, analysis, or display. The user's smartphone can then display simplified biological condition data and/or bioelectric signal data to the user, store the biological condition data and/or bioelectric signal data locally, transmit the biological condition data and/or bioelectric signal data to distributed computing resource(s) 108 for further processing or storage, and/or to third-party device(s) associated with a medical professional”).
Regarding claim 11, Byrd et al. teaches the processing electronics are configured to initiate an alert to the user or clinician in response to the determined glucose level (see [0052] – “In some examples, the format of the data produced by the biological condition correlation module 216 can be different depending on who the biological condition data is to be sent to. For example, a user of the device 200 can receive a more simplified indication of the biological condition e.g., “good,” “ask your doctor if these results merit further testing,” “seek medical assistance immediately”) whereas a medical professional or developer can receive more detailed information regarding one or more of the biological condition, the underlying bioelectric signal, or the collected signal. In some examples, the device 200 can contact emergency medical assistance, with or without the user's authorization depending on the determined rest its of the biological condition correlation”).
Regarding claim 12, Byrd et al. teaches the processing electronics are configured to store and access the determined glucose level (see [0072] – “In various examples, the measured blood glucose level is stored in the computer-readable media of the client-wearable device(s) 102, the distributed computing resource(s) 108, and/or the third party device(s) 106”).
Regarding claim 13, Byrd et al. teaches the processing electronics are configured to remotely store and access the determined glucose level (see [0072] – “In some examples, the measured blood glucose level is stored in the computer-readable media of the other client device(s) 104 to serve as the baseline value. In various examples, the measured blood glucose level is stored in the computer-readable media of the client-wearable device(s) 102, the distributed computing resource(s) 108, and/or the third party device(s) 106”).
Regarding claim 14, Byrd et al. teaches the processing electronics are configured to track the glucose level of the user over time (see [0072] – “In at least one example, the illustrative process 500 can correlate the filtered electrical signals with a blood glucose level by comparing the filtered electrical signal to a baseline value. In some examples, the baseline value is established by receiving the electrical signals, amplifying the electrical signals, and filtering the electrical signals and separately ascertaining a glucose level by another method, such as by using a lancet and blood glucose monitor or another blood glucose level measurement test. In at least one example, a user or the monitor itself provides the measured blood glucose level to the client-wearable device(s) 102 or the other client device(s) 104 and the measured blood glucose level is correlated with an amplitude of the filtered electrical signal. Variations of the amplitude of the filtered electrical signal therefrom can be correlated to a variation in blood glucose level. The client-wearable device(s) 102 and/or the other client device(s) 104 can notify the user to prompt recalibration. In some examples, the measured blood glucose level is stored in the computer-readable media of the other client device(s) 104 to serve as the baseline value. In various examples, the measured blood glucose level is stored in the computer-readable media of the client-wearable device(s) 102, the distributed computing resource(s) 108, and/or the third party device(s) 106” and [0079] – “For example, a baseline can be established through calibration of collected bioelectric signals with a known (e.g., measured using a separate device) bioelectric condition state. In that example, observed fluctuations in the bioelectric signals can be correlated with fluctuations in the bioelectric condition state. In at least one example, a biological condition state can be a particular condition at a specific time or range of time of the biological condition”).
Regarding claim 17, Byrd et al. teaches the processing electronics are configured to: determine whether to re-determine the glucose level; and if determined, automatically re-determine the glucose level (see [0041] – “In some examples, the device 200 can relay instructions to conduct a biological condition test and/or biological condition results. For example, in an example where an EOG or ERG is the bioelectric signal of interest, the device 200 can instruct a user via the speaker to look in a particular direction and/or can re-instruct a user if an error occurs”).
Regarding claim 18, Ansari et al. teaches the light source is configured to provide polarized light (see col. 3, lines 56-60 – “The light 32 is optionally selectively polarized, e.g. using a linear polarizer 34 in combination with a quarter-wave (λ/4) retarder 36 to produce a circularly polarized light 38 which impinges upon the cornea 14 at an incident angle θI referenced to a normal 40 to the local cornea surface”), and the processing electronics are configured to determine the glucose level based at least in part on a polarization angle rotation of the polarized light (see col. 5, lines 36-38 – “A glucose level processor 90 computes a polarization rotation α and an optical path length Lλ. from measurements of the analyzing optics 60”).
Regarding claim 20, Byrd et al. teaches the display is configured to transmit light from a surrounding environment to the eye of the user to allow a view of that surrounding environment (see [0054] – “The example environment 300 can include a device 302, such as a device 200 that implements non-invasive bioelectric lifestyle management. In at least one example, the device 302 can include eyeglasses or a similar head-mounted device such as, for example, a head strap, a hat, Microsoft HoloLens®, or Google Glass®, among others. In some examples, the device 302 can include lenses, but in other examples the device 302 is an eyeglass frame or similar structure”).
Claim(s) 2-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ansari et al. and Byrd et al., further in view of Burd et al. (US Publication No. 2006/0258920 A1) (cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 2, it is noted neither Ansari et al. nor Byrd et al. specifically teach the processing electronics are configured to determine the glucose level of the user automatically as programmed by the user or a clinician. However, Burd et al. teaches the processing electronics are configured to determine the glucose level of the user automatically as programmed by the user or a clinician (see [0098] – “In one implementation, the one or more input keys 640 are actuated by the user to take a single non-invasive analyte reading whenever such a reading is desired by the user” and [0108] – “If the counter/timer is above a predetermined number, then it is time for another glucose level measurement, so control passes on to step 820, and the user's eye(s) are irradiated with electromagnetic radiation and another measurement is taken. Thus, as used herein, substantially continuously interrogating the eye(s) means an interrogation occurs at any time interval over any time period or duration”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ansari et al. and Byrd et al. to include the processing electronics are configured to determine the glucose level of the user automatically as programmed by the user or a clinician, as disclosed in Burd et al., so as to allow the device to determine the glucose level of the user whenever prompted by the user or at any time interval over any time period or duration (see Burd et al.: [0098] and [0108]).
Regarding claim 3, it is noted neither Ansari et al. nor Byrd et al. specifically teach the processing electronics are configured to determine the glucose level of the user multiple times a day. However, Burd et al. teaches the processing electronics are configured to determine the glucose level of the user multiple times a day (see [0078] – “Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose (SMBG) is an ongoing process repeated multiple times per day for the rest of the diabetic patient's lifetime” and [0108] – “If the counter/timer is above a predetermined number, then it is time for another glucose level measurement, so control passes on to step 820, and the user's eye(s) are irradiated with electromagnetic radiation and another measurement is taken. Thus, as used herein, substantially continuously interrogating the eye(s) means an interrogation occurs at any time interval over any time period or duration”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ansari et al. and Byrd et al. to include the processing electronics are configured to determine the glucose level of the user multiple times a day, as disclosed in Burd et al., so as to allow the device to determine the glucose level of the user whenever prompted by the user or at any time interval over any time period or duration (see Burd et al.: [0098] and [0108]).
Regarding claim 4, it is noted neither Ansari et al. nor Byrd et al. specifically teach the processing electronics are configured to determine the glucose level of the user at least 3 times a day. However, Burd et al. teaches the processing electronics are configured to determine the glucose level of the user at least 3 times a day (see [0078] – “Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose (SMBG) is an ongoing process repeated multiple times per day for the rest of the diabetic patient's lifetime” and [0108] – “If the counter/timer is above a predetermined number, then it is time for another glucose level measurement, so control passes on to step 820, and the user's eye(s) are irradiated with electromagnetic radiation and another measurement is taken. Thus, as used herein, substantially continuously interrogating the eye(s) means an interrogation occurs at any time interval over any time period or duration”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ansari et al. and Byrd et al. to include the processing electronics are configured to determine the glucose level of the user at least 3 times a day, as disclosed in Burd et al., so as to allow the device to determine the glucose level of the user whenever prompted by the user or at any time interval over any time period or duration (see Burd et al.: [0098] and [0108]).
Regarding claim 5, it is noted neither Ansari et al. nor Byrd et al. specifically teach the processing electronics are configured to determine the glucose level of the user multiple times a week. However, Burd et al. teaches the processing electronics are configured to determine the glucose level of the user multiple times a week (see [0078] – “Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose (SMBG) is an ongoing process repeated multiple times per day for the rest of the diabetic patient's lifetime” and [0108] – “If the counter/timer is above a predetermined number, then it is time for another glucose level measurement, so control passes on to step 820, and the user's eye(s) are irradiated with electromagnetic radiation and another measurement is taken. Thus, as used herein, substantially continuously interrogating the eye(s) means an interrogation occurs at any time interval over any time period or duration”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ansari et al. and Byrd et al. to include the processing electronics are configured to determine the glucose level of the user multiple times a week, as disclosed in Burd et al., so as to allow the device to determine the glucose level of the user whenever prompted by the user or at any time interval over any time period or duration (see Burd et al.: [0098] and [0108]).
Regarding claim 6, it is noted neither Ansari et al. nor Byrd et al. specifically teach the processing electronics are configured to determine the glucose level of the user at least 3 times a week. However, Burd et al. teaches the processing electronics are configured to determine the glucose level of the user at least 3 times a week (see [0078] – “Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose (SMBG) is an ongoing process repeated multiple times per day for the rest of the diabetic patient's lifetime” and [0108] – “If the counter/timer is above a predetermined number, then it is time for another glucose level measurement, so control passes on to step 820, and the user's eye(s) are irradiated with electromagnetic radiation and another measurement is taken. Thus, as used herein, substantially continuously interrogating the eye(s) means an interrogation occurs at any time interval over any time period or duration”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ansari et al. and Byrd et al. to include the processing electronics are configured to determine the glucose level of the user at least 3 times a week, as disclosed in Burd et al., so as to allow the device to determine the glucose level of the user whenever prompted by the user or at any time interval over any time period or duration (see Burd et al.: [0098] and [0108]).
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ansari et al. and Byrd et al., further in view of Mensinger et al. (US Publication No. 2016/0232322 A1).
Regarding claim 15, it is noted neither Ansari et al. nor Byrd et al. specifically teach the processing electronics are configured to compare a contemporaneous glucose level with a historical glucose level. However, Mensinger et al. teaches the processing electronics are configured to compare a contemporaneous glucose level with a historical glucose level (see [0057] – “In addition, dedicated display 104 can determine a historical trend of whether a user's glucose levels are trending down, remaining stable, or increasing. As shown in the example in FIG. 1, dedicated display 104 presents glucose readings over time so a user can easily monitor glucose levels, and displays an actual value of the current glucose level. In the example of FIG. 1, dedicated display 104 illustrates that the current glucose level is 94 mg/dL” and [0074] – “In addition, a user can set an alert to trigger a warning to a user when their glucose levels are trending in a particular direction or have changed by a certain amount within a given time period. The operating system or the dedicated application 108 tracks the glucose levels and issues the alarm or warning when appropriate”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ansari et al. and Byrd et al. to include the processing electronics are configured to compare a contemporaneous glucose level with a historical glucose level, as disclosed in Mensinger et al., so as to allow a user to easily monitor glucose levels and be alerted when their glucose levels are trending in a particular direction or have changed by a certain amount within a given time period (see Mensinger et al.: [0057] and [0074]).
Regarding claim 16, Mensinger et al. teaches the processing electronics are configured to provide an alert to the user or clinician in response to comparing the contemporaneous glucose level with the historical glucose level (see [0057] – “In addition, dedicated display 104 can determine a historical trend of whether a user's glucose levels are trending down, remaining stable, or increasing. As shown in the example in FIG. 1, dedicated display 104 presents glucose readings over time so a user can easily monitor glucose levels, and displays an actual value of the current glucose level. In the example of FIG. 1, dedicated display 104 illustrates that the current glucose level is 94 mg/dL” and [0074] – “In addition, a user can set an alert to trigger a warning to a user when their glucose levels are trending in a particular direction or have changed by a certain amount within a given time period. The operating system or the dedicated application 108 tracks the glucose levels and issues the alarm or warning when appropriate”).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ansari et al. and Byrd et al., further in view of Welch et al. (US Publication No. 2015/0346495 A1) (cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 19, it is noted neither Ansari et al. nor Byrd et al. specifically teach the display is configured to direct different virtual images to an eye of the user with different amounts of divergence or collimation. However, Welch et al. teaches the display is configured to direct different virtual images to an eye of the user with different amounts of divergence or collimation (see [0081] – “In the present example, it should be appreciated that the two achromatic lenses (606) closest to the eye are configured to collimate the light received from the VFE after the intermediate image is formed. Thus, in this particular embodiment, when the image is viewed by the eye, the image will appear as if coming from infinity. Collimated light (i.e. light beams that are parallel to each other) produces an image that is perceived as if coming from infinity. In other examples (not shown), when the VFE is focused on other depth planes (not optical infinity plane), the light rays will typically diverge such that the user views the depth plane at a fixed depth plane in the z direction (e.g., closer than optical infinity)” and [0126] – “It should be appreciated that each of the waveguides may diffract the light differently based on the embedded diffraction pattern. For example, the waveguide having a first DOE (1460a) may collimate light associated with any image that is injected into the waveguide (1460a) through the in-coupling grating (1452). Another waveguide having a second DOE (1460f) may be configured to diverge the light to a depth plane corresponding to 1 diopter. Yet another waveguide having yet another DOE (1460e) may be configured to diverge the light to a depth plane corresponding to 2 diopters, etc. As shown in FIG. 14, the light exiting waveguide (1460f) corresponds to a different angle as compared to the light exiting waveguide (1460e). Thus, the various DOEs embedded within the waveguides emit light at varying angles, which are then perceived by the user as coming from different depth planes”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ansari et al. and Byrd et al. to include the display is configured to direct different virtual images to an eye of the user with different amounts of divergence or collimation, as disclosed in Welch et al., so as to present images that are perceived by the user as coming from different depth planes (see Welch et al.: [0126]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVIN B HENSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5340. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 AM ET - 5 PM ET.
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, Robert (Tse) Chen can be reached at (571) 272-3672. 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.
/DEVIN B HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights