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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of information disclosure statement filed 23 February 2026.
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgement is made of preliminary amendment in which the following is noted: claims 1 – 9 are cancelled and claims 10 – 18 are newly added. Claims 10 – 18 are currently pending and an Office action on the merits follows.
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.
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) 10 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai et al; (Publication number: US 2019/0331923 A1), hereafter Cai, in view of Kalder et al; (Publication number: US 10, 143, 369 B2), hereafter Kalder.
Regarding claim 10:
Cai discloses a display device (Cai ABSTRACT; near eye display), comprising:
a holding device capable of being mounted on the head of the user (Cai Figure 13 1300; [0060]);
a first image generation module, which is attached to the holding device and generated a first image (Cai Figure 13, display 1310L; [0060] and/or display 1610, Figure 16a [0067] for the right eye);
a second image generation module, which is attached to the holding device and generates a second image (Cai Figure 13, display, 1310R [0060]; and/or image generation module for the left eye corresponding to figure 16a);
a first spectacle lens, which is attached to the holding device and has a first deflection section; and a second spectacle lens, which is attached to the holding device and has a second deflection section, wherein the generated first image is deflected at the first deflection section such that the user can perceive the generated first image with a first eye as a first virtual image in the head-mounted state of the holding device,
wherein the generated second image is deflected at the second deflection section such that the user can perceive the generated second image with a second eye as a second virtual image in the head-mounted state of the holding device (Cai Figures 13 and 16a and b, wherein the images are coupled into the spectacles lens, 1320L and 1320R, according to [0053] and are coupled out again, in each case towards the eye of the viewer, by 1330L and 1330R or 1630R and 1630L according to [0067 – 0068]; see also depicted beam paths).
Cai does not disclose wherein the first and the second virtual images are presented to the user such that together the first and the second virtual images do not convey a three-dimensional image representation to the user.
However, Kalder discloses a method for representing optotypes, optotype representation, associated use, and image output device. More particularly, Kalder discloses discloses a method for determining refraction and/or visual acuity in which an optotype image are presented in a three-dimensional image and that image separation occurs in such a way that the optotypes are discernable monocularly and under binocular condition, with the three-dimensional image being binocularly discernable (Kalder Col 1 lines 38 – 43). Kalder discloses wherein the first and the second virtual images are presented to the user such that together the first and the second virtual images do not convey a three-dimensional image representation to the user (Kalder Col 5 lines 4 – 31; Figure 2 optotypes 10a 10b, and 10c are only visible monocularly and therefore to not convey the three-dimensional image representation to the user).
Regarding claim 18:
Cai (in view of Kalder) discloses the display device of claim 10, wherein the first spectacle has a first entry section, the first deflection section spaced apart therefrom, and a first exit section (Cai Figure 13 lens 1320R has entry deflection and exit section illustrated in Figure 14),
the second spectacle has a second entry section, the second deflection section spaced apart therefrom, and a second exit section (Cai Figure 13 lens 1320L has entry, deflection and exit section similarly as illustrated in Figure 14),
wherein the generated first image is coupled into the first spectacle lens via the first entry section, is guided in the first spectacle lens by at least one reflection to the first deflection section and is coupled out of the first spectacle lens via the first exit section by deflection on the first deflection section such that the user can perceive the generated first image with a first eye as the first virtual image in the head-mounted state of the holding device (Cai Figure 14 illustrates image output by display device 14010R and deflected to eye as claimed), and
wherein the generated second image is coupled into the second spectacle lens via the second entry section, is guided in the second spectacle lens by at least one reflection to the second deflection section and is coupled out of the second spectacle lens via the second exit section by deflection on the second deflection section such that the user can perceive the generated second image with a second eye as the second virtual image in the head-mounted state of the holding device (Cai Figure 14 illustrates image output by display device 14010R and deflected to eye and similarly for 1410L).
Claim(s) 11 – 13 and 15 - 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai et al; (Publication number: US 2019/0331923 A1), hereafter Cai, in view of Kalder et al; (Publication number: US 10, 143, 369 B2), hereafter Kalder, in view of Wesley W. O. Krueger (Publication number: US 2018/0008141 A1), hereafter Krueger.
Regarding claim 11:
Cai (in view of Kalder) does not disclose the display device of claim 10, wherein the first and the second virtual images are presented to the user spaced apart from each other such that there is a gap between the first and second images.
However, Krueger discloses systems and methods for using virtual reality, augmented reality, and/or a synthetic 3-Dimensional information for the measurement of human ocular performance. More particularly, Krueger discloses a display scene which can be used to for ocular performance testing such as DVA testing (Krueger Figure 14 ; [0165]; . FIG. 14 shows letters that could be superimposed onto the moving element (such as the tennis ball in FIG. 13) to test DVA. The target visual element 920 in FIG. 13, 930 and 932 in FIG. 14, or 940 in FIG. 15 could move in different trajectories, the letters could be of different sizes, and the ball could move at different speeds and accelerations to provide a meaningful test as shown by comparing visual element 930 with visual element 932.; Figure 14 illustrates 930 and 932 spaced apart with a gap between the images, as claimed).
It would have been obvious to modify the display device of claim 10, wherein the first and the second virtual images are presented to the user spaced apart from each other such that there is a gap between the first and second images, as claimed. Those skilled in the art would appreciate the ability to assess the DVA of the user.
Regarding claim 12:
Cai (in view of Kalder and Krueger) discloses the display device of claim 10, wherein the first and the second virtual images are presented to the user spaced apart from each other in a horizonal direction (see position of 930 and 932 in Figure 14 of Krueger).
Regarding claim 13:
Cai (in view of Kalder and Krueger) discloses the display device of claim 10, wherein the first and second virtual images are presented to the user spaced apart from each other in a vertical direction (see position of 930 and 932 in Figure 14 of Krueger).
Regarding claim 15:
Cai (in view of Kalder and Krueger) discloses the display device of claim 10, wherein the first and the second virtual images are presented in a common focus plane (Krueger Figure 14 – illustrates 930 and 932 in common plane).
Regarding claim 16:
Cai (in view of Kalder and Krueger) discloses the display device of claim 10, wherein the first and second virtual images are presented in different focus planes (Krueger [0252] variation of depth can add complexity to testing and measurement).
Regarding claim 17:
Cai (in view of Kalder and Krueger) discloses the display device of claim 10, wherein the user, via an input interface, specified to the display device to present only the first virtual image or only the second virtual image (disclosed in combination of Kalder Figure 2 tablet computer 12 controlling output device 4; and Krueger Figure 14 illustrating the display of only 930 and 932).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai et al; (Publication number: US 2019/0331923 A1), hereafter Cai, in view of Kalder et al; (Publication number: US 10, 143, 369 B2), hereafter Kalder, in view of Li et al; (Publication number: US 2017/0123215 A1), hereafter Li.
Regarding claim 14:
Cai (in view of Kalder) does not disclose the display device of claim 13, wherein a sensor is arranged at the holding device to measure the inclination of the holding device, and wherein either only the first image or only the second virtual image is presented, depending on the measured inclination.
However, Li discloses methods of vestibulo-ocular reflex correction in display systems. More particularly, Li discloses wherein a sensor is arranged at the holding device to measure the inclination of the holding device (Li Figure 3 sensors 301), and wherein either only the first image or only the second virtual image is presented, depending on the measured inclination (disclosed in combination of Kalder Figure 3 and Li Figure 301; [0007] HDM compensates for VOR response).
It would have been obvious to further modify Cai (in view of Kalder) wherein a sensor is arranged at the holding device to measure the inclination of the holding device, and wherein either only the first image or only the second virtual image is presented, depending on the measured inclination, as claimed. Those skilled in the art would appreciate better display readability, discernment and cognitive processing (Li ABSTRACT).
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/ 24 July 2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622
Prosecution Insights