DETAILED ACTION
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 Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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 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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/9/2025 and 2/5/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 11, cited term of “from which they are deflected in a direction of the exit portion” (line 12) is vague and renders the claims indefinite. First, according to structures of deflecting portion (12) and reflective deflecting elements (14) (see fig. 2 of instant disclosure), lights deflecting appears cannot be in only one direction. Second, “a direction of the exit portion” is unclear as the exit portion has a plurality of directions. Do applicants mean that “from which they are deflected in directions towards to the exit portion”?
Claims 12-20 are rejected as containing the deficiencies of claim 11 through their dependency from claim 11.
Therefore proper amendments are required in order to clarify the scopes of the claims and overcome the rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 11, 13-14, 16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Potnis et al (US 20200386994).
Regarding Claim 11, Potnis teaches a spectacle lens for a display device which can be placed on the head of a user and generate an image (abstract; figs. 6-9), the spectacle lens comprising:
a front side (fig. 6A-C, upper surface of 308a);
a rear side (fig. 6A-C, lower surface of 308b);
an entry portion (fig. 6A-C, 352; fig. 9, 552);
a deflecting portion, which is spaced apart from the entry portion (fig. 9, 556, and light deflecting portion between 552 and 556);
an exit portion in the rear side (fig. 9, middle of lower surface of lens wherein light going to eye 432); and
a light-guiding channel (fig. 6A-C, 312; fig. 9, 512),
wherein bundles of light from the generated image (fig. 9, 428) that are coupled into the spectacle lens via the entry portion of the spectacle lens (fig. 9, 552) are guided via the light-guiding channel in the spectacle lens (fig. 9, 512), via at least one reflection, as far as the deflecting portion, from which they are deflected in a direction of the exit portion and are then coupled out of the spectacle lens by way of the exit portion (fig. 9, 556, light coupled out to eye 420, and lights deflecting between 552 and 556),
wherein the spectacle lens is of multi-shell construction and comprises a first shell, a second shell and a third shell (fig. 6A-C, 308a, 312, 308b),
wherein the second shell (fig. 6A-C, 312) is arranged between the first and third shells and is connected to the first and third shells (fig. 6A-C, 308a, 308b),
wherein the second shell comprises a first boundary surface, which is oriented toward the first shell (fig. 6A-C, upper surface of 312 toward to 308a), and a second boundary surface, which is oriented toward the third shell (fig. 6A-C, lower surface of 312 toward to 308b),
wherein the second shell comprises at least one first spacer (fig. 6C, 348a”), which projects in relation to the first boundary surface and pre-defines the spacing between the second and first shells (fig. 6A-C, 348a”, 308a’, 312, vha), and at least one second spacer (fig. 6C, 348b”), which projects in relation to the second boundary surface and pre-defines the spacing between the second and third shells (fig. 6A-C, 348b”, 308b’, 312, vhb).
Regarding Claim 13, Potnis teaches the spectacle lens of claim 11, wherein the first and third shells are free of spacers (fig. 6C, 308a’, 308b’).
Regarding Claim 14, Potnis teaches the spectacle lens of claim 11, wherein the first and second shells are connected via a first adhesive layer and the second and third shells are connected via a second adhesive layer (fig. 6A, 308a, 312, 308b, 360a, 360b; ¶[0111], line 1-32, Lens 308a, lightguide 312, and lens 308b may be held together by seals 360a, 360b; ¶[0090], line 1-19, seal 160 may be made of a curable material, such as a UV curable resin, or may be a double-sided adhesive pad).
Regarding Claim 16, Potnis teaches the spectacle lens of claim 11, wherein the deflecting portion comprises a plurality of reflective deflecting elements arranged one beside the other (¶[0084], line 1-14, lightguide 112; Output coupler 156 may be attached to lightguide 112, integrally formed with lightguide 112; output coupler 156 may be any type of optical grating structure including, but not limited to, diffraction gratings, …; --necessarily having grating elements periodically arranged beside one another).
Regarding Claim 18, Potnis teaches the spectacle lens of claim 11, wherein the light-guiding channel is formed in the second and third shells (fig. 6A-C, 312; fig. 9, 512).
Regarding Claim 19, Potnis teaches the spectacle lens of claim 11, wherein the two boundary surfaces are curved (fig. 8, 512; ¶[0121], line 1-15, Lightguide 512 may have the same properties as described above for lightguide 112. Lightguide 512 may be planar, as shown in FIG. 8A, or may be curved, i.e., not lying flat on a plane; ¶[0079], line 15-22, lightguide 112 may be a curved lightguide, where either of lightguide surfaces 128, 132 may be a curved surface, i.e., not lying flat or not in a plane).
Regarding Claim 20, Potnis teaches a display device (figs. 6-9) comprising:
a holding device, which can be placed on the head of a user (fig. 7A, 412a-b, 408, 100);
an image-generating module (fig. 7B, 428), which is fastened on the holding device and generates an image (fig. 7A-B, 428, 400); and
the spectacle lens of claim 11, which is fastened on the holding device and, in the state in which the holding device has been placed on the head, projects the generated image in such a manner that the user can perceive it as a virtual image (fig. 7A-B, 100, 400, 412a-b, 428, 432; fig. 9, 420, 400, 504, 512, 432; ¶[0003], line 1-5, Wearable heads-up displays use optical combiners to combine real world and virtual images).
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Potnis et al (US 20200386994).
Regarding Claim 12, Potnis discloses as set forth above but does not specifically disclose that the spectacle lens of claim 11, wherein the at least one first spacer and the at least one second spacer are formed in one piece with the second shell.
However, Potnis teaches first spacers, second spacers and second shell (fig. 6A-C, 312, 348a”, 348b”).
Further, it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed into two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 US 164 (1893).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spectacle lens of Potnis to have at least one first spacer and the at least one second spacer are formed in one piece with the second shell, for a purpose of providing of a wearable heads-up display that provides a sufficient field of view, that can include eyeglasses prescription if needed, and that is not too bulky and/or too heavy to be worn on the head for prolonged periods (¶[0007], line 16-23).
Regarding Claim 17, Potnis discloses as set forth above but does not specifically disclose that the spectacle lens of claim 16, wherein a structure for the reflective deflecting elements that pre-defines geometrical dimensions is formed in one piece with the third shell.
However, Potnis teaches wherein a structure for the reflective deflecting elements that pre-defines geometrical dimensions in the third shell (fig. 6A-C, 312, 308b’, 348b”, vhb).
Further, it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed into two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 US 164 (1893).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spectacle lens of Potnis to have a structure for the reflective deflecting elements that pre-defines geometrical dimensions is formed in one piece with the third shell, for a purpose of providing of a wearable heads-up display that provides a sufficient field of view, that can include eyeglasses prescription if needed, and that is not too bulky and/or too heavy to be worn on the head for prolonged periods (¶[0007], line 16-23).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Potnis et al (US 20200386994) in a view of Blomstedt (US 20200379260).
Regarding Claim 15, Potnis discloses as set forth above but does not specifically disclose that the spectacle lens of claim 11, wherein the deflecting portion is formed in the third shell.
However, Blomstedt teaches a diffractive waveguide element (abstract; figs. 1-4 and 15), wherein the deflecting portion is formed in the third shell (fig. 15, 152, 152a, 152b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spectacle lens of Potnis by the diffractive waveguide element of Blomstedt for a purpose of providing of a diffractive waveguide element which is capable of modifying the light field within the waveguide region (¶[0009], line 1-9).
Examiner’s Note
Regarding the references, the Examiner cites particular figures, paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the reference(s), as applied to the claims above. Although the particular citations are representative teachings and are applied to specific limitations within the claims, other passages, internally cited references, and figures may also apply. In preparing a response, it is respectfully requested that the Applicant fully consider the references, in their entirety, as potentially disclosing or teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as fully consider the context of the passage as taught by the reference(s) or as disclosed by the Examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Jie Lei whose telephone number is (571) 272 7231. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon.-Thurs. 8:00 am to 5:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by the telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Stephone Allen can be reached on (571) 272 2434.The Fax number for the organization where this application is assigned is (571) 273 8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published application may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Services Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199(In USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/JIE LEI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights