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
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 1/17/2025; 1/17/2025; 1/17/2025; 1/17/2025; 1/17/2025; 1/17/2025; 10/23/2025; 2/10/2026 have been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,298,517. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both teach:
Instant Application 19028214
US Patent Number 12,298,517 B1
Claim 1. A head mounted display system configured to project light to an eye of a user to display augmented reality image content in a vision field of the user, the head mounted display system comprising: a frame configured to be supported on a head of the user; an image projector coupled to the frame and configured to project images into the user’s eye of the user to display image content in the vision field of the user; a camera coupled to the frame; a waveguide coupled to the frame and optically coupled to the camera; an optical coupling element coupled to the frame and configured such that light is coupled into the waveguide; an out-coupling element coupled to the frame and configured to direct light emitted from the waveguide to the camera; a first light source coupled to the frame and configured to direct light to the eye of the user; and electronics coupled to the first light source and to the camera, the electronics configured to control the camera to capture images periodically.
Claim 1. A head mounted display system configured to project light to an eye of a user to display augmented reality image content in a vision field of the user, the head mounted display system comprising: a frame configured to be supported on a head of the user; an image projector coupled to the frame and configured to project images into the user's eye to display image content in the vision field of the user; a camera coupled to the frame; a waveguide coupled to the frame and optically coupled to the camera; an optical coupling element coupled to the frame and configured such that light is coupled into the waveguide; an out-coupling element coupled to the frame and configured to direct light emitted from the waveguide to the camera; a plurality of infrared light sources, including a first light source coupled to the frame and configured to direct light to the user's eye; and electronics coupled to the first light source and to the camera, the electronics configured to control the camera to capture images periodically, while pulsing the first light source in time with the camera image capture such that light emitted by the first light source has a reduced intensity when the camera is not capturing images, wherein the camera is configured to: capture a first region of a retina of the user's eye when directed at a first angle relative to the waveguide; and capture a second region of the retina of the user's eye when directed at a second angle relative to the waveguide.
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, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Spitzer (US Patent Publication Number 2016/0018639 A1).
Spitzer teaches, as claimed in claim 1, a head mounted display system (Figs. 1-6) configured to project light to an eye (120) of a user to display augmented reality image content (118) in a vision field of the user, the head mounted display system (100) comprising: a frame configured to be supported on a head of the user (Fig. 6), an image projector (128) coupled to the frame (¶0051 “Heads-up display 600 includes a pair of eyepieces 601, each of which can be one of heads-up displays 100, 200 or 300, or can be all or part of a system such as system 500)1 and configured to project images into the user's eye (120) of the user to display image content (107) in the vision field of the user; a camera (124) coupled to the frame (¶0051 “Heads-up display 600 includes a pair of eyepieces 601, each of which can be one of heads-up displays 100, 200 or 300, or can be all or part of a system such as system 500)2; a waveguide (102) coupled to the frame (¶0051 “Heads-up display 600 includes a pair of eyepieces 601, each of which can be one of heads-up displays 100, 200 or 300, or can be all or part of a system such as system 500) and optically coupled to the camera (124); an optical coupling element (113) coupled to the frame3 (¶0051 “Heads-up display 600 includes a pair of eyepieces 601, each of which can be one of heads-up displays 100, 200 or 300, or can be all or part of a system such as system 500) and configured such that light is coupled into the waveguide (102); an out-coupling element (112) coupled to the frame4 (¶0051 “Heads-up display 600 includes a pair of eyepieces 601, each of which can be one of heads-up displays 100, 200 or 300, or can be all or part of a system such as system 500)and configured to direct light emitted from the waveguide (102) to the camera(124); a first light source (134) coupled to the frame5 (¶0051 “Heads-up display 600 includes a pair of eyepieces 601, each of which can be one of heads-up displays 100, 200 or 300, or can be all or part of a system such as system 500) and configured to direct light to the eye of the user (120); and electronics coupled to the first light source and to the camera, the electronics configured to control the camera to capture images periodically6 (¶0047 “As the user sees ambient light from scene 118, camera 124 captures one or more images of user's eye 120 and transmits the images to computer 501. Computer 501 can then analyze the images and use the information to determine the focus of the user's gaze”).
Spitzer teaches, as claimed in claim 5, wherein at least the waveguide (102), the optical coupling element (113), and the out-coupling element (112) form a eyepiece (601) configured to direct the light into the eye (120) of the user to display augmented reality image (¶0002 “Heads-up displays allow a user to view a scene while relevant information is overlaid on the scene”) content to the vision field of the user (¶0051 “Heads-up display 600 includes a pair of eyepieces 601, each of which can be one of heads-up displays 100, 200 or 300, or can be all or part of a system such as system 500), at least a portion of the eyepiece being transparent (¶0043 “the injected material will form light guide 102 and will hold the internal optical elements in place. Any material that has the required optical characteristics can be used; in one embodiment, for example, the material can be an optically transparent plastic”) and disposed at a location in front of the eye of the user (Fig. 6) when the user wears the head mounted display system (100 integrated in 600) such that the at least a portion (102 that makeups 601) of the eyepiece transmits light from an environment (118) in front of the user to the eye (120) of the user to provide a view of the environment in front of the user.
Spitzer teaches, as claimed in claim 15, wherein the first light source (134)comprises one or more infrared light sources (¶0021 “LEDs 134 or 136”) configured to direct infrared light to the eye (120) of the user.
Spitzer teaches, as claimed in claim 16, wherein the first light source comprises one or more infrared light emitting diodes (¶0021 “LEDs 134 or 136”s).
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 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spitzer (US Patent Publication Number 2016/0018639 A1) in view of Samec (US Patent Publication N umber 2017/0365101 A1).
Spitzer fails to teach, as claimed in claim 17, wherein the waveguide includes a stack of waveguides configured to output light with different wavefront divergence as if projected from different distances from the eye of the user. In a related art, Samec teaches wherein the waveguide includes a stack of waveguides configured to output light with different wavefront divergence as if projected from different distances from the eye of the user (¶0350 “wherein the waveguide is one of a stack of waveguides, wherein each of the stack waveguides is configured to output light with different wavefront divergence”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the , a head mounted display system , as taught by Spitzer, with the stack of waveguides, as taught by Samec, for the purpose of providing a way to extract the light out of the waveguide (¶0350).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 and 6-14 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:
The prior art fails to teach all of the limitations of claim 2 which includes head mounted display system further comprises a reflective optical element configured to collimate light from the eye of the user, the reflective optical element being arranged not within the waveguide between the first and second major surface of the waveguide.
Regarding claim 3 has dependency on claim 2.
The prior art fails to teach all of the limitations of claim 4 which includes herein the first light source is a plurality of infrared light sources disposed between the waveguide and the eye of the user to illuminate the eye of the user, the plurality of infrared light sources configured to direct light onto the eye of the user without being coupled into and guided through the waveguide.
The prior art fails to teach all of the limitations of claim 6 which includes further comprising a reflective surface having optical power disposed to receive light reflected from the eye of the user that passes through the eyepiece and to direct the light back to the eyepiece.
Regarding claims 7-13 have dependency on claim 6.
The prior art fails to teach all of the limitations of claim 14 which includes herein the electronics are configured to control the camera to capture images periodically, while pulsing the first light source in time with capture of the images by the camera such that light emitted by the first light source has a reduced intensity when the camera is not capturing images.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cakmakci (US Patent Number 9,389,422 B1) considered the closest prior art teaches A head mounted display system (100) configured to project light to an eye (160) of a user to display augmented reality image content in a vision field of the user, the head mounted display system comprising: a frame (315) configured to be supported on a head of the user further comprising a reflective surface (130 and 140) having, Cakamakci fails to teach a reflective surface having optical power disposed to receive light reflected from the eye of the user that passes through the eyepiece and to direct the light back to the eyepiece.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOURNEY F SUMLAR whose telephone number is (571)270-0656. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4pm.
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, 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.
JOURNEY F. SUMLAR
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
30 September 2026
/SHARRIEF I BROOME/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
1”The image projector 128 is coupled to the waveguide 102 and the whole system is coupled to the frame as shown in Fig. 6.
2 Element 124 is shown attached to the waveguide 102 waveguide and the whole system is coupled to the frame as shown in Fig. 6.
3 Element 113 is shown attached to the waveguide 102 waveguide and the whole system is coupled to the frame as shown in Fig. 6.
4 Element 112 is shown attached to the waveguide 102 waveguide and the whole system is coupled to the frame as shown in Fig. 6.
5 Element 124 is shown attached to the waveguide 102 waveguide and the whole system is coupled to the frame as shown in Fig. 6.
6 Computer 501 analyzes the images from images captured from each one of the cameras. The period in between the captures would implicitly teach that the images are periodically captured.
