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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Response to Election/Restriction Requirement filed 07/09/2026. Claims 1-5 are pending and have been examined.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/16/2025 was considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I, claims 1-5, in the reply filed on 07/09/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the claims do not create an undue burden because the claims are not independent and distinct. This is not found persuasive because the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification; the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes /subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Stafford (US 2024/0295735).
Consider claim 1, Stafford clearly teaches a near-eye display device, (Fig. 2) comprising:
a frame to receive a corrective lens; (Figs. 2, 4: Left and right prescription lens holders 400 are attached to HMD 200, [0051], [0055].)
a projector to project display light; (Fig. 2: HMD 200 includes a display, [0044], [0051], [0067].)
an optical system to guide the display light to an exit pupil facing the corrective lens; (Fig. 2: Left and right lenses 202, 204, [0051]) and
a receiver (Fig. 1: Network interfaces 20, Bluetooth transceiver 34, NFC 36, [0037], [0040]) to receive a transmission of prescription profile information for the corrective lens, (Fig. 14: Prescription information from an online database is received by HMD 200, [0068].) wherein the near-eye display device is to adjust display settings of at least one of the projector and the optical system based on the prescription profile information. (The prescription information is used to adjust the VR rendering FOV to account for magnification or minification caused by the prescription lens insert, [0069], [0073].)
Consider claim 3, Stafford clearly teaches a controller (Fig. 1: Processor 24, [0037]) to adjust display settings of the projector based on the prescription profile information by shifting a location of pixels displayed at the near-eye display device to compensate for refraction of display light by the corrective lens. (The prescription information is used by a display engine to adjust the VR rendering FOV to account for magnification or minification caused by the prescription lens insert, [0069], [0073].)
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.
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stafford (US 2024/0295735) in view of Das et al. (US 2015/0185505), herein Das.
Consider claim 2, Stafford clearly teaches the receiver is to receive the transmission.
However, Stafford does not explicitly teach the receiver is to receive the transmission in response to a user logging into the near-eye display device from an electronic device.
In an analogous art, Das, which discloses a head-mounted system, clearly teaches the receiver is to receive the transmission in response to a user logging into the near-eye display device from an electronic device. (Figs. 7, 9: When a user logs into display device 905 eye prescription information is transmitted to the smart glasses, [0049], [0056], [0071], [0072].)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Stafford by the receiver is to receive the transmission in response to a user logging into the near-eye display device from an electronic device, as taught by Das, for the benefit of easily providing the correct prescription information to the head-mounted device.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stafford (US 2024/0295735) in view of Ryu et al. (US 2023/0038781), herein Ryu.
Consider claim 4, Stafford clearly teaches gaze-tracking circuitry; (Fig. 3: HMD 200 includes eye tracking, [0053].) and a controller to based on the prescription profile information to compensate for refraction of display light by the corrective lens. (The prescription information is used by a display engine to adjust the VR rendering FOV to account for magnification or minification caused by the prescription lens insert, [0069], [0073].)
However, Stafford does not explicitly teach a controller to apply an offset to the gaze-tracking circuitry to compensate for refraction of display light by the corrective lens.
In an analogous art, Ryu, which discloses a head-mounted display system, clearly teaches a controller to apply an offset to the gaze-tracking circuitry to compensate for refraction of display light by the corrective lens. (Figs. 6, 7: An offset function is applied to the gaze information to correct distortion of the prescription lens, [0101], [0106]-[0108], [0116], [0117].)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Stafford by a controller to apply an offset to the gaze-tracking circuitry to compensate for refraction of display light by the corrective lens, as taught by Ryu, for the benefit of correcting errors in the gaze tracking system caused by the corrective lens.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
In the case of amending the claimed invention, applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN R SCHNURR whose telephone number is (571)270-1458. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6a-4p.
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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at (571)272-7527. 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.
/JOHN R SCHNURR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights