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 .
Double Patenting
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 and claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 10, 782, 526 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each limitation in claim 2 of the application is anticipated by claim 7 and claim 8 of the patent.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10, 782, 526 B2 in view of Kress et al; (Publication number: US 2015/0212326 A1), hereafter Kress.
Regarding claim 2
Patent claim 1 anticipates each limitation in claim 2 of the application except for: a controller, operably coupled to the dynamic focusing element to control the dynamic focusing element based on at least one of the virtual image, input from the wearer, or an accommodation of the wearer.
However, Kress discloses a dynamic lens for head mounted display. More particularly, Kress discloses a controller, operably coupled to the dynamic focusing element to control the dynamic focusing element based on at least one of the virtual image, input from the wearer, or an accommodation of the wearer (Kress Figure 2A control circuitry 250 coupled to lens 233; Figure 2F virtual image depth based on tunable lens).
It would have been obvious to modify claim 2 of the application to include a controller, operably coupled to the dynamic focusing element to control the dynamic focusing element based on at least one of the virtual image, input from the wearer, or an accommodation of the wearer, as claimed. Those skilled in the art would appreciate the ability to view images at differing depths, thereby improving the viewing experience.
Regarding claim 3:
Claim 3 of the application is similarly rejected over patent claim 2 (in view of Kress).
Regarding claim 4:
Claim 4 of the application is similarly rejected over patent claim 2 (in view of Kress).
Regarding claim 6:
Patent claim 2 (in view of Kress) discloses the apparatus of claim , wherein the tunable lens is a liquid lens (Kress Figure 2D and 2E).
Regarding claim 9:
Patent claim 2 (in view of Kress) discloses the apparatus of claim 2, further comprising: an antenna, operably coupled to the controller, and configured to receive a wireless signal from an external device, the wireless signal causing the controller to change the focus of the virtual image (Kress Figure 3B 320; [0038]; Figure 2F).
Regarding claim 10:
Patent claim 2 (in view of Kress) discloses the apparatus of claim 9, wherein the external device is at least one of a smart phone, a smart watch, or an external controller (Kress [0037]).
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10, 782, 526 B2 in view of Kress et al; (Publication number: US 2015/0212326 A1), hereafter Kress, in view of Chin et al; (Publication number: Us 2012/0262663 A1), hereafter Chin.
Regarding claim 5:
Patent claim 2 (in view of Kress) does not disclose the apparatus of claim 4, wherein the electro-active lens comprises: a first cylindrical electro-active lens element; and a second cylindrical electro-active lens element in optical series with the first cylindrical electro-active lens element.
However, Chin discloses electrically tunable liquid lens crystal lens set with central electrode.
More particularly, Chin discloses wherein the electro-active lens comprises: a first cylindrical electro-active lens element; and a second cylindrical electro-active lens element in optical series with the first cylindrical electro-active lens element (Chin Figure 8 lens 110A and 110B in series with each other).
It would have been obvious to further modify patent claim 2 (in view of Kress) wherein the electro-active lens comprises: a first cylindrical electro-active lens element; and a second cylindrical electro-active lens element in optical series with the first cylindrical electro-active lens element, as claimed. Those skilled in the art would appreciate the ability to resolve a birefringency problem (Chin [0009]).
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10, 782, 526 B2 in view of Kress et al; (Publication number: US 2015/0212326 A1), hereafter Kress, in view of Kimura, Fusashi (Publication number: US 2014/0168266 A1), hereafter Fusashi.
Regarding claim 8:
Patent claim 1 (in view of Kress) does not disclose the apparatus of claim 2, further comprising: a button or touch sensor, operably coupled to the controller, to receive the input from the wearer.
However, Kimura discloses a head-mounted display device, control method for head-mounted display device, and work supporting system. More particularly, Kimura discloses a button or touch sensor, operably coupled to the controller, to receive the input from the wearer (Kimura Figure 1 touch pad 14and cross 16 are used to provide input).
It would have been obvious to modify Patent claim 1 (in view of Kress) to include a button or touch sensor, operably coupled to the controller, to receive the input from the wearer, as claimed. Those skilled in the art would appreciate the ability to manipulate a user interface in the immersive environment.
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10, 782, 526 B2 in view of Kress et al; (Publication number: US 2015/0212326 A1), hereafter Kress, in view of Miao, Xiaoyu (Publication number: US 2013/0113973 A1), hereafter Xiaoyu.
Regarding claim 12:
Patent claim 1 (in view of Kress) does not disclose the apparatus of claim 2, further comprising: a sensor, operably coupled to the controller, to detect at least one of an ambient light or an accommodation of the wearer.
However, Miao discloses adaptive brightness control of head mounted display. More particularly, Miao discloses a sensor, operably coupled to the controller, to detect at least one of an ambient light or an accommodation of the wearer (Miao Figure 2 145).
It would have been obvious to further modify Patent claim 1 (in view of Kress) to further comprise a sensor, operably coupled to the controller, to detect at least one of an ambient light or an accommodation of the wearer, as claimed. Those skilled in the art would appreciate the ability to adjust the display brightness in an outdoor environment.
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12, 222, 511. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each limitation in claim 7 of the application is anticipated by claim 11 of the patent.
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12, 222, 511. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each limitation in claim 11 of the application is anticipated by claim 11 of the patent.
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12, 222, 511. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each limitation in claim 13 of the application is anticipated by claim 11 of the patent.
Claim 14 – 15 and 17 - 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12, 222, 511 in view of Kress et al; (Publication number: US 2015/0212326 A1), hereafter Kress.
Regarding claim 14:
Each limitation in claim 14 is anticipated by claim 12 of the patent except for: the apparatus comprising a mirror and reflecting the virtual image to the wearer via the mirror.
However, Kress discloses dynamic lens for head mounted display. More particularly, Kress discloses a mirror and reflecting the virtual image to the wearer via the mirror (Kress Figure 1A 183).
It would have been obvious to modify patent claim 12 to include a mirror and reflecting the virtual image to the wearer via the mirror, as claimed. Those skilled in the art would appreciate a reduced size of the head mounted display device.
Regarding claim 15:
claim 15 of the application is similarly rejected over patent claim 19 (in view of Kress).
Regarding claim 17:
Claim 17 of the application is similarly rejected over patent claim 12 (in view of Kress)
Regarding claim 18:
Claim 18 of the application is similarly rejected over claim 16 (in view of Kress).
Regarding claim 19:
Claim 19 of the application is similarly rejected over claim 15 (in view of Kress).
Regarding claim 20:
Claim 20 of the application is similarly rejected over claim 20 (in view of Kress).
Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12, 222, 511 in view of Kress et al; (Publication number: US 2015/0212326 A1), hereafter Kress, in view of Raffle et al; (Publication number: US 2013/0207887 A1), hereafter Raffle.
Regarding claim 16:
Patent claim 12 (in view of Kress) does not disclose the method of claim 14 wherein changing the focus of the virtual image comprises: receiving a wireless signal from an external device; and changing the focus of the virtual image in response to the wireless signal.
However, Raffle discloses a heads-up display including eye tracking. More particularly, Raffle discloses receiving a wireless signal from servers to the display device (Raffle [0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify patent claim 12 (in view of Kress) to include receiving a wireless signal from an external device; and changing the focus of the virtual image in response to the wireless signal, as claimed. Those skilled in the art would appreciate the ability to utilize servers to store immersive content thereby reducing the size the head mounted device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIHIR K RAYAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 - 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, Patrick Edouard can be reached at 571-272-7063. 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.
/MIHIR K RAYAN/ 23 February 2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622