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 sent in response to Applicant’s Communication received 28 May 2025 for application number 19/220,660. The Office hereby acknowledges receipt of the following and placed of record in file: Specification, Drawings, Abstract, Oath/Declaration, Claims.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on the following dates are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and are being considered by the Examiner: 5/28/25; 10/24/25; 2/18/26.
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,355,933. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claim 1, ‘933 discloses a display system comprising: an optical waveguide combiner, comprising: a waveguide; and an optical output coupler to couple image-bearing light out of the waveguide toward a user's eye; and a camera to receive at least a portion of the image-bearing light coupled out of the optical output coupler (claim 1).
Regarding claim 2, see teachings of claim 1. ‘933 further discloses wherein: the camera is optically coupled to the optical output coupler (claim 2).
Regarding claim 3, see teachings of claim 1. ‘933 further discloses further comprising an optical input coupler to couple image-bearing light into the waveguide; wherein the optical input coupler is coupled via the waveguide to the optical output coupler (claim 3).
Regarding claim 4, see teachings of claim 1. ‘933 further discloses wherein: the camera is a first camera; the display system further comprises a second camera; a field of view of the first camera is a first field of view; the second camera is optically coupled to the optical output coupler and has a second field of view of a display image formed from the image-bearing light and displayed by the waveguide; and at an image plane, the display image is within a combined field of view of the first camera and the second camera (claim 4).
Regarding claim 5, see teachings of claims 1 and 4. ‘933 further discloses wherein: at the image plane, a combined field of view of the first camera and the second camera comprises the first field of view of the first camera and the second field of view of the second camera and includes an overlapping region of the first field of view and the second field of view (claim 5).
Regarding claim 6, see teachings of claim 1. ‘933 further discloses wherein:the waveguide is transparent; and at least one real object is viewable within a field of view of the camera (claim 6).
Regarding claim 7, see teachings of claim 1. ‘933 further discloses wherein, at an image plane, a field of view of an eyebox of the optical output coupler is within a field of view of the camera (claim 7).
Regarding claim 8, see teachings of claim 1. ‘933 further discloses wherein the camera is located in a region outside a field of view of an eyebox of the optical output coupler (claim 8).
Regarding claim 9, see teachings of claims 1 and 8. ‘933 further discloses wherein: the optical output coupler comprises a pre-exit pupil expansion region and an exit pupil expansion region; and the camera is optically coupled to the pre-exit pupil expansion region (claim 9).
Regarding claim 10, see teachings of claims 1 and 3. ‘933 further discloses further comprising a projector configured to project a display image of at least one virtual object into the optical input coupler (claim 10).
Regarding claim 11, see teachings of claim 1. ‘933 further discloses wherein the optical output coupler comprises one or more optical diffractive elements (claim 11).
Regarding claim 12, see teachings of claim 1. ‘933 further discloses wherein the one or more optical diffractive elements comprise two diffractive optical elements at least partially overlaid on one another in or on the waveguide (claim 12).
Regarding claim 13, see teachings of claims 1 and 12. ‘933 further discloses wherein the optical output coupler comprises a combined 2D expansion output diffractive grating (claim 13).
Regarding claim 14, see teachings of claim 1. ‘933 further discloses wherein: the camera comprises a wafer level camera; and the wafer level camera is incorporated in or on the waveguide (claim 14).
Regarding claim 15, see teachings of claims 1 and 3. ‘933 further discloses wherein: the optical input coupler comprises an optical input diffractive grating; and the optical input diffractive grating is in optical communication with the optical output coupler without any intermediate optical diffractive grating therebetween (claim 15).
Regarding claim 16, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, see teachings of claim 16. ‘933 further discloses further comprising: projecting the image-bearing light into the waveguide to display a display image via the optical output coupler, the camera having a field of view of a real world scene visible through the waveguide and of the displayed display image; capturing an image of the displayed display image and the real world scene using the camera; comparing, using the captured image, the display image to the real world scene; determining a registration error between the display image and the real world scene based on the comparison; and adjusting the projection of the image-bearing light to adjust the display image to substantially correct the registration error (claim 16).
Regarding claim 18, see teachings of claims 16 and 17. ‘933 further discloses wherein: comparing, using the captured image, the display image to the real world scene comprises: identifying a common feature or fiducial in the display image and the real world scene; and comparing the identified common feature or fiducial in the display image with the identified common feature or fiducial in the real world scene; determining a registration error between the display image and the real world scene based on the comparison comprises: determining a difference in a position of the common feature or fiducial identified in the display image and the position of the common feature or fiducial identified in the real world scene; and adjusting the position of the display image to substantially correct the registration error comprises: adjusting one or more of: a size, shape and position of the display image, whereby the common feature or fiducial identified in the display image and the common feature or fiducial identified in the real world scene substantially coincide (claim 17).
Regarding claim 19, see teachings of claims 16-18. ‘933 further discloses wherein projecting the display image comprises generating an image of a real object using external sensors (claim 18).
Regarding claim 20, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1.
Prior Art not relied upon: Please refer to the references listed in attached PTO-892, which are not relied upon for the claim rejections, since these references are pertinent to the disclosure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGUYEN T TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-5262. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri, 6AM - 2PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JAMIE ATALA can be reached on 571-272-7384. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding 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 applications 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 Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NGUYEN T TRUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights