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 June 5, 2025, October 15, 2025, and March 9, 2026 were filed after the mailing date of the application on January 21, 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “target object detection module” in claims 1 and 18.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-26 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-25 of U.S. Patent No. 12,260,580, as shown in the tables below. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of the instant claims are essentially covered by the limitations of the patent claims. As per Claim 1, the limitations of Claim 1 are covered by the limitations of patent Claims 1 and 3, as shown in the table below. However, Claim 1 recites wherein the number of the multiple first-eye light signals per degree for the first-eye virtual image of the first portion of the target object in the first field of view exceeds 60, whereas patent Claim 3 recites wherein the number of the multiple first-eye light signals per degree for the first-eye virtual image of the first portion of the target object in the first field of view exceeds 120. If the number of the multiple first-eye light signals per degree for the first-eye virtual image of the first portion of the target object in the first field of view exceeds 120, then it also exceeds 60. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the number of the multiple first-eye light signals per degree for the first-eye virtual image of the first portion of the target object in the first field of view exceeds 60.
19/033,369
Claim 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
12,260,580
Claims 1, 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
11
12
7
8
9
10
19/033,369
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
12,260,580
13
14
15
16
22
23
24
25
17
18
19
20
21
19/033,369 (Claim 1)
12,260,580 (Claims 1 and 3)
A head wearable display system comprising:
A head wearable display system comprising: (Claim 1)
a target object detection module receiving multiple image pixels of a first portion and a second portion of a target object, and the corresponding depths;
a target object detection module receiving multiple image pixels of a first portion and a second portion of a target object, and the corresponding depths; (Claim 1)
a first light emitter emitting multiple first-eye light signals to display a first-eye virtual image of the first portion and the second portion of the target object for a viewer;
a first light emitter emitting multiple first-eye light signals to display a first-eye virtual image of the first portion and the second portion of the target object for a viewer; (Claim 1)
a first light direction modifier for respectively varying a light direction of each of the multiple first-eye light signals emitted from the first light emitter;
a first light direction modifier for respectively varying a light direction of each of the multiple first-eye light signals emitted from the first light emitter; (Claim 1)
a first collimator, disposed between the first light emitter and the first light direction modifier, to adjust a beam waist location of each of the multiple first-eye light signals so that the multiple first-eye light signals are separable from each other;
a first collimator, disposed between the first light emitter and the first light direction modifier, to adjust a beam waist location of each of the multiple first-eye light signals so that the multiple first-eye light signals are separable from each other; (Claim 1)
a first combiner, for redirecting and converging the multiple first-eye light signals towards a first eye of the viewer; and
a first combiner, for redirecting and converging the multiple first-eye light signals towards a first eye of the viewer; and (Claim 1)
wherein the first-eye virtual image of the first portion of the target object in a first field of view has a greater number of the multiple first-eye light signals per degree than that of the first-eye virtual image of the second portion of the target object in a second field of view,
wherein the first-eye virtual image of the first portion of the target object in a first field of view has a greater number of the multiple first-eye light signals per degree than that of the first-eye virtual image of the second portion of the target object in a second field of view, wherein the multiple first-eye light signals are separable from each other if a spatial distance between centers of any two adjacent first-eye light signals on a cross-sectional plane of light path is larger than half of a greatest diameter of the two adjacent first-eye light signals (Claim 1)
wherein the number of the multiple first-eye light signals per degree for the first-eye virtual image of the first portion of the target object in the first field of view exceeds 60.
wherein the number of the multiple first-eye light signals per degree for the first-eye virtual image of the first portion of the target object in the first field of view exceeds 120. (Claim 3)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-26 are rejected under double patenting, but would be allowable if a terminal disclaimer is filed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art taken singly or in combination do not teach the combination of all the limitations of Claim 1, and in particular, do not teach a head wearable display system comprising: a target object detection module receiving multiple image pixels of a first portion and a second portion of a target object, and the corresponding depths; a first light emitter emitting multiple first-eye light signals to display a first-eye virtual image of the first portion and the second portion of the target object for a viewer; a first light direction modifier for respectively varying a light direction of each of the multiple first-eye light signals emitted form the first light emitter; a first collimator, disposed between the first light emitter and the first light direction modifier, to adjust a beam waist location of each of the multiple first-eye light signals so that the multiple first-eye light signals are separable from each other; a first combiner, for redirecting and converging the multiple first-eye light signals towards a first eye of the viewer; and wherein the first-eye virtual image of the first portion of the target object in a first field of view has a greater number of the multiple first-eye light signals per degree than that of the first-eye virtual image of the second portion of the target object in a second field of view, wherein the number of the multiple first-eye light signals per degree for the first-eye virtual image of the first portion of the target object in the first field of view exceeds 60. Claims 2-26 depend from Claim 1, and therefore also contain allowable subject matter.
The closest prior art (Hajati (US 20200090569A1)) teaches system 10 is a head-mounted device [0024]. Sensors and other components 18 (e.g., image sensors for gathering images of real-world objects that are digitally merged with virtual objects on a display system 10, depth sensors [0026]. Image frame 132 may include a high definition foveated region 134 at the center of the frame. Region 134 is surrounded by a lower resolution peripheral region 130 [0054]. System 10 is implemented on a head-mounted device. Location 24 may be an eye box. Selectively activating the light elements in light sources 14A may allow two-dimensional images to be projected at location 24 [0027]. Light fields emitted by PIC 200 may propagate to scanning mirror 224. Scanning mirror 224 may scan (rotate) [0063]. Light fields emitted by PIC 200 may propagate to scanning mirror 224 via collimating optics 222 [0063]. Optical components 14C to convey light 22 to location 24 [0031]. The scanning mirror 42 is controlled to spend more time within the center of the image frame (by rotating more slowly through the center of the frame) and less time around the periphery of the image frame (by rotating more rapidly at the periphery of the frame), thereby maximizing image resolution near the center of the frame while sacrificing image resolution near the periphery of the frame [0041]. However, Hajati does not teach wherein the number of the multiple first-eye light signals per degree for the first-eye virtual image of the first portion of the target object in the first field of view exceeds 60.
Prior Art of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hajati (US 20200090569A1) teaches the scanning mirror 42 is controlled to spend more time within the center of the image frame (by rotating more slowly through the center of the frame) and less time around the periphery of the image frame (by rotating more rapidly at the periphery of the frame), thereby maximizing image resolution near the center of the frame while sacrificing image resolution near the periphery of the frame [0041].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONI HSU whose telephone number is (571)272-7785. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6:30pm.
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, Kee Tung can be reached at (571)272-7794. 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.
JH
/JONI HSU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights