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 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
Claims 41-49 and 54-57 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11 February 2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species V, corresponding to originally filed Claims 38-40 and 50-53 in the reply filed on 11 February 2026 is acknowledged.
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 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacoby et al. (hereinafter “Jacoby” US 2021 / 0141212) in view of Fukushima et al. (hereinafter “Fukushima” US 5,424,793).
(It should be noted that the Jacoby and Fukushima references were cited by the applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) received 12 May 2025).
As pertaining to Claim 38, Jacoby discloses (see Figs. 1A-1D, Fig. 2, and Fig. 11; and see Fig. 12A and Fig. 14A) a head-mounted display device (see Fig. 11; and see Page 5, Para. [0044]-[0045] and Page 11, Para. [0115]) comprising:
a light projector (see (40) in Figs. 1A-1D and (140, 160) in Fig. 2);
an optical assembly (see (20, 30, 40) in Figs. 1A-1D and (120, 130, 140) in Fig. 2) arranged to receive light from the light projector (160) and direct the light to a user (see (E) in Figs. 1A-1D) during use of the head-mounted display device (again, see Fig. 11), wherein the optical assembly (again, see (20, 30, 40) in Figs. 1A-1D and (120, 130, 140) in Fig. 2) comprises a variable focus lens assembly (see (20) in Figs. 1A-1D and see (120) in Fig. 2; and see Page 6, Para. [0069]-[0075]; Page 7, Para. [0080]; and Page 8, Para. [0086]) comprising:
a carrier frame (see (30) in Fig. 11 and Page 11, Para. [0115]; and/or a housing; also see any frame component at the right side of Fig. 14A holding the variable focus lens assembly together);
a cam ring (see (390) in Fig. 12A) nested within the carrier frame (again, see (30) in Fig. 11 and/or a housing; and see any frame component at the right side of Fig. 14A holding the variable focus lens assembly together);
a rigid refractive component (see (22) in Figs. 1A-1D and see (320) in Fig. 14A);
a shaper ring (see (21) in Figs. 1A-1D; and see (377) in Fig. 12A and Fig. 14A) defining an aperture (i.e., a central opening) wherein the shaper ring (21; also see (377) in Fig. 12A and Fig. 14A) is nested within the cam ring (390); and
a flexible lens membrane (see (26) in Figs. 1A-1D) between the shaper ring (again, see (21) in Figs. 1A-1D) and the rigid refractive component (again, see (22) in Figs. 1A-1D), the flexible lens membrane (26) covering the aperture (i.e., the central opening),
wherein the rigid refractive component (again, see (22) in Figs. 1A-1D), the shaper ring (see (21) in Figs. 1A-1D), and the flexible lens membrane (see (26) in Figs. 1A-1D) are arranged along an axis (again, see Figs. 1A-1D),
wherein the rigid refractive component (see (22) in Figs. 1A-1D) and the flexible lens membrane (see (26) in Figs. 1A-1D) define a chamber (see (25) in Figs. 1A-1D) between the flexible lens membrane (26) and the refractive component (22), and
wherein a volume of fluid is disposed within the chamber (see (25) in Figs. 1A-1D); and
an actuator module (i.e., a suitable adjustment mechanism) coupled to the variable focus lens assembly (see (20) in Figs. 1A-1D and see (120) in Fig. 2), wherein the actuator module (i.e., suitable adjustment mechanism) is configured to adjust an optical power of the variable focus lens assembly (see (20) in Figs. 1A-1D and see (120) in Fig. 2) by moving the shaper ring (21; also see (377) in Fig. 12A and Fig. 14A) relative to the rigid refractive component (see (22) in Figs. 1A-1D and see (320) in Fig. 14A) along the axis, such that a curvature of the flexible lens membrane (see (26) in Figs. 1A-1D) in the aperture (i.e., the central opening) is modified (see Page 6, Para. [0072]; and see Page 12, Para. [0130]; and Page 13, Para. [0137]-[0139]).
Jacoby does not explicitly disclose that the cam ring surrounds the shaper ring.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Fukushima discloses (see Fig. 10) that it was well-known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement a variable focus lens assembly with a circular cam ring (2) nested within a carrier frame (1), wherein the cam ring is configured such that a rotation of the cam ring (2) relative to the carrier frame (1) about an axis causes movement of a shaper ring (4) along the axis, wherein the shaper ring (4) is nested within the cam ring (2) and the cam ring (2) surrounds the shaper ring (4; see Col. 3, Ln. 53-68 through Col. 4, Ln. 1-2 and Ln. 11-20), in order to provide a compact and effective means of focusing the lens as desired by a user (see Col. 4, Ln. 24-40). Fukushima further discloses that improvements to the cam ring and shaper ring design within a variable focus lens assembly can further produce compactness of construction and improve marketability (see Col. 4, Ln. 41-46).
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 Jacoby with the teachings of Fukushima, such that the cam ring disclosed by Jacoby surrounds the shaper ring, as suggested by Fukushima, in order to provide the compact and effective means of adjusting optical power of the variable focus lens assembly as disclosed by Fukushima.
As pertaining to Claim 39, Jacoby discloses (see Figs. 1A-1D, Fig. 2, and Fig. 11; and see Fig. 12A and Fig. 14A) that the cam ring (see (390) in Fig. 12A) is configured such that a rotation of the cam ring (390) relative to the carrier frame (see (30) in Fig. 11 and/or a housing; and see any frame component at the right side of Fig. 14A holding the variable focus lens assembly together) about the axis causes the shaper ring (21; also see (377) in Fig. 12A and Fig. 14A) to move relative to the rigid refractive component (see (22) in Figs. 1A-1D and see (320) in Fig. 14A) along the axis (again, see Page 6, Para. [0072]; and see Page 12, Para. [0130]; and Page 13, Para. [0137]-[0139]).
As pertaining to Claim 40, Jacoby discloses (see Figs. 1A-1D, Fig. 2, and Fig. 11; and see Fig. 12A and Fig. 14A) that the actuator module (i.e., a suitable adjustment mechanism) is configured to rotate the cam ring (see (390) in Fig. 12A) about the axis (again, see Page 6, Para. [0072]; and see Page 12, Para. [0130]; and Page 13, Para. [0137]-[0139]).
Claims 50-53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacoby in view of Fukishima and further in view of Shibata et al. (hereinafter “Shibata” US 6,078,438).
As pertaining to Claim 50, Jacoby discloses (see Figs. 1A-1D, Fig. 2, and Fig. 11; and see Fig. 12A and Fig. 14A) that the actuator module comprises a suitable adjustment mechanism, including an electric motor (again, see Page 6, Para. [0072]; and see Page 12, Para. [0130]; and Page 13, Para. [0137]).
Neither Jacoby nor Fukushima explicitly discloses that the actuator module comprises a plate comprising a piezoelectric material, one or more arms extending from the plate and coupled to a mechanical ground, and one or more mounting structures disposed on the plate, wherein each mounting structure is mounted to a respective portion of the optical assembly.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Shibata discloses (see Fig. 1 and Fig. 2) that it was well-known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement a vibration actuator to drive a rotary member to provide focus adjustment in a lens system with high accuracy and good efficiency (see Col. 2, Ln. 60-67 through Col. 3, Ln. 1-6). In this regard, Shibata suggests the implementation of an actuator module (10) comprising a plate (11) comprising a piezoelectric material (12), one or more arms (11a, 11b, 11c, 11d) extending from the plate (11) and coupled to a mechanical ground (i.e., a base portion of (11)), and one or more mounting structures disposed on the plate (i.e., bottom surface portions of (11a, 11b, 11c, 11d)), wherein each mounting structure (i.e., each bottom surface portion of (11a, 11b, 11c, 11d)) is mounted to a respective portion of an optical assembly (see (40) in Fig. 1; and see Col. 7, Ln. 61-67 through Col. 8, Ln. 1-22 and Ln. 30-39).
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 Jacoby and Fukushima with the teachings of Shibata, such that the actuator module comprises a plate comprising a piezoelectric material, one or more arms extending from the plate and coupled to a mechanical ground, and one or more mounting structures disposed on the plate, wherein each mounting structure is mounted to a respective portion of the optical assembly, as suggested by Shibata, in order to adjust the optical power of the variable focus lens assembly of Jacoby using an actuator module known to provide high accuracy and good efficiency.
As pertaining to Claim 51, Shibata discloses (see Fig. 1 and Fig. 2) that the actuator module (10) is configured to vibrate the plate (11) according to at least two vibration modes (see Col. 8, Ln. 30-39).
As pertaining to Claim 52, Shibata discloses (see Fig. 1 and Fig. 2) that the plate (11) comprises a pair of opposing first edges (i.e., front and back edges) extending a first direction (i.e., a horizontal direction), and a pair of opposing second edges (i.e., left and right edges) extending a second direction (i.e., a depth direction) orthogonal to the first direction (i.e., the horizontal direction), wherein the first edges (i.e., the front and back edges) are longer than the second edges (i.e., the left and right edges), and
wherein according to a first vibration mode (i.e., a longitudinal vibration or a bending vibration), the first edges (i.e., the front and back edges) are displaced (i.e., via vibration and/or bending) relative to a center of the plate (11) in a third direction (i.e., a vertical direction) orthogonal to the first direction (i.e., the horizontal direction) and the second direction (i.e., the depth direction; again, see Col. 8, Ln. 30-39).
As pertaining to Claim 53, Shibata discloses (see Fig. 1 and Fig. 2) that according to a second vibration mode (i.e., a longitudinal vibration or a bending vibration), the second edges (i.e., the left and right edges) are displaced (i.e., via vibration and/or bending) relative to one another in the second direction (i.e., the depth direction; again, see Col. 8, Ln. 30-39).
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 38-40 and 50-53 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,624,919, cited by the applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) received 12 May 2025. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claims 38-40 and 50-53 of the instant application are entirely overlapped in scope by Claim 1 of the cited U.S. Patent.
Claims 38-40 and 50-53
Instant Application
Claim 1
Cited U.S. Patent
38. A head-mounted display device comprising:
a light projector;
an optical assembly arranged to receive light from the light projector and direct the light to a user during use of the head-mounted display device, wherein the optical assembly comprises a variable focus lens assembly comprising:
a carrier frame, and
a cam ring nested within the carrier frame,
a rigid refractive component,
a shaper ring defining an aperture wherein the shaper ring is nested within the cam ring and the cam ring surrounds the shaper ring, and
a flexible lens membrane between the shaper ring and the rigid refractive component, the flexible lens membrane covering the aperture,
wherein the rigid refractive component, the shaper ring, and the flexible lens membrane are arranged along an axis,
wherein the rigid refractive component and the flexible lens membrane define a chamber between the flexible lens membrane and the refractive component, and
wherein a volume of fluid is disposed within the chamber; and
an actuator module coupled to the variable focus lens assembly, wherein the actuator module is configured to adjust an optical power of the variable focus lens by moving the shaper ring relative to the rigid refractive component along the axis, such that a curvature of the flexible lens membrane in the aperture is modified.
39. The head-mounted display device of claim 38, wherein the cam ring is configured such that a rotation of the cam ring relative to the carrier frame about the axis causes the shaper ring to move relative to the rigid refractive component along the axis.
40. (New) The head-mounted display device of claim 39, wherein the actuator module is configured to rotate the cam ring about the axis.
50. The head-mounted display device of claim 40, wherein the actuator module comprises:
a plate comprising a piezoelectric material,
one or more arms extending from the plate and coupled to a mechanical ground, and one or more mounting structures disposed on the plate, wherein each mounting structure is mounted to a respective portion of the optical assembly.
51. The head-mounted display device of claim 50, wherein the actuator module is configured to vibrate the plate according to at least two vibration modes.
52. The head-mounted display device of claim 51, wherein the plate comprises a pair of opposing first edges extending a first direction, and a pair of opposing second edges extending a second direction orthogonal to the first direction, wherein the first edges are longer than the second edges, and
wherein according to a first vibration mode, the first edges are displaced relative to a center of the plate in a third direction orthogonal to the first direction and the second direction.
53. The head-mounted display device of claim 52, wherein according to a second vibration mode, the second edges are displaced relative to one another in the second direction.
1. A head-mounted display device comprising:
a light projector;
an optical assembly arranged to receive light from the light projector and direct the light to a user during use of the head-mounted display device, wherein the optical assembly comprises a variable focus lens assembly comprising:
a rigid refractive component,
a shaper ring defining an aperture,
a flexible lens membrane between the shaper ring and the rigid refractive component, the flexible lens membrane covering the aperture,
a carrier frame, and
a cam ring nested within the carrier frame, the cam ring encircling the flexible lens membrane,
wherein the shaper ring is nested within the cam ring,
wherein the rigid refractive component, the shaper ring, and the flexible lens membrane are arranged along an axis,
wherein the rigid refractive component and the flexible lens membrane define a chamber between the flexible lens membrane and the refractive component,
wherein a volume of fluid is disposed within the chamber, and
wherein the cam ring is configured such that a rotation of the cam ring relative to the carrier frame about the axis causes the shaper ring to move relative to the rigid refractive component along the axis; and
an actuator module coupled to the variable focus lens assembly, wherein the actuator module is configured to adjust an optical power of the variable focus lens assembly by rotating the cam ring relative to the carrier frame about the axis to cause the shaper ring to move relative to the rigid refractive component along the axis, such that a curvature of the flexible lens membrane in the aperture is modified,
wherein the actuator module comprises:
a plate comprising a piezoelectric material,
one or more arms extending from the plate and coupled to a mechanical ground, and
one or more mounting structures disposed on the plate, wherein each mounting structure is mounted to a respective portion of the optical assembly,
wherein the actuator module is configured to vibrate the plate according to at least two vibration modes,
wherein the plate comprises a pair of opposing first edges extending a first direction, and a pair of opposing second edges extending a second direction orthogonal to the first direction, wherein the first edges are longer than the second edges,
wherein according to a first vibration mode, the first edges are displaced relative to a center of the plate in a third direction orthogonal to the first direction and the second direction, and
wherein according to a second vibration mode, the second edges are displaced relative to one another in the second direction.
As can be seen in comparing Claims 38-40 and 50-53 of the instant application to Claim 1 of the cited U.S. Patent, the only difference between these claimed inventions is that Claim 1 of the cited U.S. Patent requires a “cam ring” that is “”encircling the flexible lens membrane,” while Claim 38 of the instant application recites a “cam ring” that “surrounds the shaper ring.” However, given the broadest reasonable interpretation of these claims, the “cam ring” as recited in Claims 38-40 and 50-53 of the instant application may include a “cam ring” that both “surrounds the shaper ring” and is “encircling the flexible lens membrane.” In other words, there is no structural or functional distinction recited in Claim 38 of the instant application that would distinguish the claimed “cam ring” from the “cam ring” as recited in Claim 1 of the cited U.S. Patent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 38-40 and 50-53 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on a combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The applicant has argued that the teachings of Jacoby, as relied upon by the examiner in the prior Office Action, do not teach or fairly suggest the newly claimed “cam ring” that “surrounds the shaper ring” as recited in independent Claim 38, as the “cam plate 390 does not surround the support ring 377” as shown in Figure 12A of Jacoby (see Remarks at Pages 8 and 9). The examiner generally agrees. However, the examiner respectfully maintains that the newly claimed “cam ring” was well-known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and, as evidenced by at least the teachings of Fukushima newly relied upon above, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in order to provide a compact and effective means of adjusting optical power of the variable focus lens assembly. Therefore, the rejection of Claims 38-40 and 50-53 is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang et al. (US 8,282,004) discloses (see Fig. 4 and Fig. 10) a variable focus lens assembly with a circular cam ring (64, 74), wherein the cam ring (64, 74) is driven by a piezoelectric actuator (42) to provide variable focus (see Col. 2, Ln. 48-67 through Col. 3, Ln. 1-19).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights