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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species I, directed to originally filed Claims 1-6, in the reply filed on 22 January 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that Species I through V should be treated as a single species, as all of Species I through V are supported by Figures 18A-18C and Figures 19A through 21, and there is no search burden in examining at least Species I through V. This is not found persuasive.
It should be noted that the Requirement for Restriction / Election mailed 23 December 2025 cited Species I through VII as being directed to independent or distinct structural and/or function embodiments of a display and vision correction system. The applicant has not expressly traversed the cited Requirement for Restriction / Election with respect to Species VI and VII, corresponding to originally filed Claims 15-20.
However, with respect to Species I through V, corresponding to originally filed Claims 1-14, the applicant has asserted that because the features of Claims 1-14 are all supported by Figures 18A to 18C and Figures 19A to 21, there is no search burden in examining all of originally filed Claims 1-14. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Firstly, originally filed Claims 1-14 are directed to various structural and/or functional embodiments and/or combinations of various structural and/or functional embodiments of a display and vision correction system that correspond to various specific features of originally filed Figures 18A to 18C and Figures 19A to 21, as well as specific structural features presented with respect to Figures 10A and 10B (Species I), Figures 11A and 11B (Species II), Figure 12D (Species II), Figures 12A and 12B (Species III), and the specific structural “bow” features of Figure 21 (Species V). Each of Species I, II, III, and V is directed to an independent and/or distinct structural and/or functional embodiment of the claimed display and vision correction system, and none of these cited species is claimed to require, or is disclosed to require, the structural and/or functional features of the other cited species. Further, each of Species I and Species IV is directed to distinct structural features of a head-mounted display unit and/or a glasses frame, namely structural features necessary to produce a specific pantoscopic tilt requirement (Species I, Figure 18C) or structural features necessary to produce a specific wrap angle requirement (Species IV, Figure 18B), that are neither claimed in combination nor disclosed as being required in combination. In this regard, as stated in the Requirement for Restriction / Election mailed 23 December 2025, there is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct Species I through VII because each of the cited species requires employing different search strategies and/or search queries, and a search for the specific structural and/or functional features of any one of the cited species is not likely to result in the discovery of art that is relevant to the specific structural and/or functional features of the other cited species.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 7-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 22 January 2026.
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, 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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebert (US 11,163,166) in view of Tazbaz et al. (hereinafter “Tazbaz” (US 2016 / 0054571).
As pertaining to Claim 1, Ebert discloses (see Fig. 1, Fig. 3 and Fig. 4, and Fig. 9) a display and vision correction system (see (300) in Fig. 3 and (400) in Fig. 4 corresponding to (1000, 900) in Fig. 9; and see Col. 1, Ln. 19-26 and Ln. 30-42; see Col. 2, Ln. 3-23; Ln. 29-35; and Ln. 42-46; and see Col. 3, Ln. 49-60) comprising:
a head-mounted display unit (i.e., a head worn display system; see Fig. 3 and Fig. 4) configured to be worn on a head of a user and including a display (see (300) in Fig. 3; and see (410) in Fig. 4) for providing graphical content (i.e., virtual reality display content) to the user;
a glasses frame (see (1010, 910) in Fig. 9) configured to be worn on the head of the user; and
a removable lens assembly (see (100) in Fig. 1; and see Col. 4, Ln. 18-37 and Ln. 51-67 through Col. 5, Ln. 1-14) that is interchangeably usable with the head-mounted display unit (i.e., head worn display system; see Fig. 3 and Fig. 4) and with the glasses frame (again, see (1010, 910) in Fig. 9), the removable lens assembly (see (100) in Fig. 1) including a corrective lens element (see (110) in Fig. 1; and; see Col. 6, Ln. 4-30; and Col. 7, Ln. 1-10 and 19-41; and see Col. 8, Ln. 46-57; and note that the removable lens assembly can be coupled to the glasses frame (see Fig. 9) “via any of the embodiments described herein” (see Col. 8, Ln. 50-52), including the manner of coupling associated with the head-mounted display unit (see Fig. 3 and Fig. 4)),
wherein a first pantoscopic tilt angle (i.e., an arbitrary pantoscopic tilt angle) is formed between a lens plane (i.e., a vertical plane corresponding to a vertical axis of the lens) of the corrective lens element (again, see (110)) and a horizontal eye axis of the user (i.e., a horizontal axis extending outward from the user’s face) when the removable lens assembly (100) is coupled to the head-mounted display unit (i.e., the head worn display system; see Fig. 3 and Fig. 4) and the head-mounted display unit (again, see Fig. 3 and Fig. 4) is worn on the head of the user,
wherein a second pantoscopic tilt angle (i.e., an arbitrary pantoscopic tilt angle) is formed between the lens plane (i.e., the vertical plane corresponding to a vertical axis of the lens) of the corrective lens element (again, see (110)) and the horizontal eye axis of the user (i.e., the horizontal axis extending outward from the user’s face) when the removable lens assembly (100) is coupled to the glasses frame (see (1010, 910) in Fig. 9) and the glasses frame (see Fig. 9) is worn on the head of the user (again, see Col. 6, Ln. 4-30; and Col. 7, Ln. 1-10 and 19-41; and see Col. 8, Ln. 46-57; and note that an arbitrary pantoscopic tilt angle is necessarily formed between the lens plane and the horizontal eye axis of the user whenever the corrective lens element is used with the head-mounted display unit and/or the glasses frame).
Ebert does not explicitly disclose that the first pantoscopic tilt angle associated with the head-mounted display unit is different than the second pantoscopic tilt angle associated with the glasses frame.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Tazbaz discloses (see Fig. 2 and, for example, Fig. 3) a head-mounted display unit and/or a glasses frame (100) wherein a lens assembly (106) is adjustable and customizable based on a user’s individual preferences such that a line-of-sight, pantoscopic tilt angle, and eye relief can be adjusted via kinematic assemblies to suit a user’s particular needs (see Page 1, Para. [0012]-[0013]; and Page 2 through Page 3, Para. [0015]-[0018], Para. [0020]-[0023], and Para. [0026]-[0028]). In this regard, it is the expressed goal of Tazbaz to provide a means for enabling adjustment of the optics and optical properties of a head-mounted display unit and/or glasses frame to accommodate the preferences of the individual user and the content being interacted with via the head-mounted display unit and/or glasses frame (see Page 1, Para. [0001]-[0002]). Further, Tazbaz suggests a mechanism for quick and easy adjustment of the optics and/or optical properties of the head-mounted display unit and/or glasses frame that optimizes the position of the optics based on a desired application (see Page 1, Para. [0007]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ebert with the teachings of Tazbaz, such that the first pantoscopic tilt angle associated with the head-mounted display unit is different than the second pantoscopic tilt angle associated with the glasses frame, as suggested by Tazbaz to accommodate the preferences of the individual user and/or the content being interacted with via the head-mounted display unit and/or glasses frame to optimize the position of the corrective lens element based on the desired application.
As pertaining to Claim 2, Tazbaz discloses (see Fig. 2 and, for example, Fig. 3) that a first vertex distance between a surface of the corrective lens element (see (106) of Tazbaz corresponding to (110) of Ebert) and an eye of the user is defined (i.e., as an eye relief) when the removable lens assembly (again, see (106) of Tazbaz corresponding to (100) of Ebert) is used with the head-mounted display unit (see (100) of Tazbaz corresponding to Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 of Ebert) and a second vertex distance between the surface of the corrective lens element (again, see (106) of Tazbaz corresponding to (110) of Ebert) and the eye of the user is defined (i.e., as an eye relief) when the removable lens assembly (again, see (106) of Tazbaz corresponding to (100) of Ebert) is used with the glasses frame (see (100) of Tazbaz corresponding to Fig. 9 of Ebert), and wherein the first vertex distance is different than the second vertex distance (again, see Page 2 through Page 3, Para. [0020]-[0023] and Para. [0026]-[0028] of Tazbaz and again note that it is the expressed goal of Tazbaz to provide a means for enabling adjustment of the optics and optical properties of a head-mounted display unit and/or glasses frame to accommodate the preferences of the individual user and the content being interacted with via the head-mounted display unit and/or glasses frame).
As pertaining to Claim 3, Tazbaz discloses (see Fig. 2 and, for example, Fig. 3) that contact between the removable lens assembly (again, see (106) of Tazbaz corresponding to (100) of Ebert) and a nose of the user is limited based on the first vertex distance and the second vertex distance (i.e., the eye relief; again, see Page 2 through Page 3, Para. [0020]-[0023] and Para. [0026]-[0028] of Tazbaz).
As pertaining to Claim 4, Tazbaz discloses (see Fig. 2 and, for example, Fig. 3) that the head-mounted display unit (see (100) of Tazbaz corresponding to Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 of Ebert) is configured to locate the corrective lens element (again, see (106) of Tazbaz corresponding to (110) of Ebert) in a first wear position relative to the user, the first wear position being defined by the first pantoscopic tilt angle and the first vertex distance (i.e., the first eye relief), and wherein the glasses frame (see (100) of Tazbaz corresponding to Fig. 9 of Ebert) is configured to locate the corrective lens element (again, see (106) of Tazbaz corresponding to (110) of Ebert) in a second wear position relative to the user, the second wear position being defined by the second pantoscopic tilt angle and the second vertex distance (i.e., the second eye relief; again, see Page 2 through Page 3, Para. [0020]-[0023], and Para. [0026]-[0028]).
As pertaining to Claim 5, Ebert discloses (see Fig. 1, Fig. 3 and Fig. 4, and Fig. 9) that the head-mounted display unit (i.e., head worn display system; see Fig. 3 and Fig. 4) engages a first set of facial datums of the user (i.e., see any arbitrary points at which the head worn display system in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 contacts a user's face) to locate the corrective lens element (110) in the first wear position (i.e., an arbitrary wear position) relative to the user, and wherein the glasses frame (see (1010, 910) in Fig. 9) engages a second set of facial datums of the user (i.e., see any arbitrary points at which the glasses frame in Fig. 9 contacts a user's face) to locate the corrective lens element (see (110) in Fig. 1 corresponding to (1010, 910) in Fig. 9) in the second wear position (i.e., an arbitrary wear position) relative to the user (see Col. 1, Ln. 19-26 and Ln. 30-42; and see Col. 5, Ln. 65-67 through Col. 6, Ln. 1-3 and Col. 7, Ln. 1-41).
As pertaining to Claim 6, Ebert discloses (see Fig. 1, Fig. 3 and Fig. 4, and Fig. 9) that the removable lens assembly (see (100) in Fig. 1) is configured for coupling with the head-mounted display unit (i.e., head worn display system; see Fig. 3 and Fig. 4) and with the glasses frame (see (1010, 910) in Fig. 9) with an interference fit (i.e., a magnetic and/or mechanical coupling; see Col. 8, Ln. 58-66; and Col. 9, Ln. 17-21; and see Fig. 6 and Fig. 8, for example).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Meynen et al. (US 2021 / 0149216) discloses an eyewear having a means for adjusting at least pantoscopic tilt to accommodate an individual user’s preferences.
Hartley et al. (US 6,637,877) discloses a removable lens assembly (20) that is interchangeable in a number of different platforms, wherein a first platform has a first pantoscopic tilt angle and a second platform has a second pantoscopic tilt angle different from the first pantoscopic tilt angle (see at least Fig. 4C and Col. 1, Ln. 7-34 and Col. 7, Ln. 6-27).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON M MANDEVILLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3136. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30AM-4:00PM.
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, Chanh Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-7772. 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.
/JASON M MANDEVILLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2623