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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an eyeball position detection system configured to detect a position of the eyeball with respect to the at least one optical element” and “a central processing unit (CPU) configured to: specify, based on the detected position of the eyeball, a light beam group that reaches a retina; and control the projection optical device form the image light with the light beam group” in claim 19.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 10-11, 13, 18-19, 22 and 24-26 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 22 “wherein the image light includes a plurality of light beams, each light beam of the plurality of light beams includes a chief ray and marginal rays, each light beam of the plurality of light beams has a focal point in front of the at least one optical element, and chief rays of the image light incident to the at least one optical element are substantially parallel to an optical axis” raises clarity issues. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “chief rays” and “marginal rays” are used by the claim to mean the optical axis and surrounding rays that converge to focal points, respectively, in a telecentric image projection while the accepted meaning of “chief ray” is a ray from an off-axis point in the object passing through the center of the aperture stop and the accepted meaning of “marginal ray” is a ray that passes from the center of the object, at the maximum aperture of the lens1. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term, indeed, the specification does not use these terms. In the remarks on pages 9-10 in summing up applicant’s interpretation of the terms contrary to its ordinary meaning applicant states: “Accordingly, the ‘main light beam’ that is substantially parallel to the optical axis refers to the ‘chief rays’ and the ‘peripheral light beams’ refers to the ‘marginal rays’ in the claims.” Insofar as the examiner understands applicant’s statements, applicant is defining “chief ray” to describe the central ray of the three groupings shown in figures 1A-1B and is defining “marginal rays” to describe the surrounding rays that converge to focal points, see annotated figure A below. The examiner respectfully notes that the focal points P1, P2 and P3 are showing a focal/image plane for the displayed image. In the art, there are various drafting conventions. Thus, figures may or may not show individual focal points of an image. However, it is well understood that an image display would be axiomatically/inherently produce an image at an image plane. The examiner is struggling to understand what feature applicant is claiming, i.e. the metes and bounds are vague and indefinite. The claim limitation has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because “at least one optical element” and “projection optical device” are generic place holders (first prong) that are “configured” to perform functions (second prong) and it is unclear if the generic placeholders have sufficient structure or material for performing the claimed function. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Given the extensive referencing to figures 1A-1B and paragraph [0027-28] and the remarks pages 9-10 the examiner’s best guess that will be used for purposes of examination is that any optical system with a telecentric output (i.e. substantially collimated output) having an image plane (i.e. focal points) before the at least one optical element will read on lines 6-12 of claim 1 and lines 8-14 of claim 22.
Claims 3-4, 6-7, 10-11, 13, 18-19 and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite, since they depend on claim 1 and therefore have the same deficiencies.
Regarding claim 25 “wherein the chief rays cover an entirety of the pupil” raises clarity issues. Given the uncertainty regarding the meaning of “chief ray”, as set forth above, the metes and bounds of the claim is unclear. For purposes of examination the examiner will interpret the limitation as inherent for proper operation.
[AltContent: textbox (Applicant’s “marginal ray”)][AltContent: textbox (Applicant’s “chief ray”)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Art understood marginal ray)][AltContent: textbox (Art understood chief ray)][AltContent: textbox (Art understood chief ray)]
PNG
media_image1.png
736
826
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A. Annotated version of instant application figures 1A-1B, generally2 implying chief and marginal rays and the understood meanings of how the newly introduced terms of a “chief ray” and a “marginal ray” are being argued on the bottom bundle, i.e. one of the “plurality of light beams”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed November 6, 2025, with respect to claim rejections under 112 have been fully considered and in combination with the amendments are persuasive. Specifically, the amendments to the claims have made the previous rejections moot. The claim rejections under 112 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed November 6, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument centered on failing to disclose "each light beam of the plurality of light beams has a focal point in front of the at least one optical element, and chief rays of the image light incident to the at least one optical element are substantially parallel to an optical axis," as recited in amended independent claim 1, the examiner is unpersuaded. Terashima figures 3 and 4 clearly shows a series of focal points and the chief rays being substantially parallel, see figures B and C below.
PNG
media_image2.png
194
206
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure B. Portion of Terashima figure 3 showing a series of focal points of the substantially parallel light beams between elements 7 and 14.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (focal points)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Applicant defined “marginal rays”)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Applicant defined “chief rays”)]
PNG
media_image3.png
338
154
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure C. Annotated portion of Terashima figure 4 showing focal points of the substantially parallel axis of light beams between elements 13 and 14.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to prior art rejections based on Akkaya and/or Sprague have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 22 and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Terashima US Patent 1,349,018, of record.
Regarding claim 1 Terashima discloses an image projection system (title e.g. see figures 1-5), comprising: at least one optical element (e.g. lenses 8) configured to collect image light near a pupil of an eyeball (see figures); and a projection device (e.g. portion including elements 4-5, 7 & 9-14) that includes a projection optical device configured to emit the image light (see figures 3-4); wherein the image light includes a plurality of light beams, each light beam of the plurality of light beams includes a chief ray and marginal rays, each light beam of the plurality of light beams has a focal point in front of the at least one optical element, and chief rays of the image light incident to the at least one optical element are substantially parallel to an optical axis (see figures B and C above and interpretation set forth in 112 rejection above).
Regarding claim 22, under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986) see MPEP 2112.02. Since claim 22 recite the normal use of the device in claim 1 claim 22 is rejected as inherent.
Regarding claim 24 Terashima discloses the image projection system according to claim 1, as set forth above. Terashima further discloses wherein a positional relationship between the at least one optical element and the eyeball is fixed (implicit given the head rest seen in the figures).
Regarding claim 25 Terashima discloses the image projection system according to claim 1, as set forth above. Terashima further discloses wherein the chief rays cover an entirety of the pupil (inherent for proper operation, see 112 rejection above).
Regarding claim 26 Terashima discloses the image projection system according to claim 1, as set forth above. Terashima further discloses wherein the projection optical device (e.g. portion including elements 4-5, 7 & 9-14) includes a two-dimensional array display element (e.g. combination of at least film 10 & light source 4), and the two-dimensional array display element forms the image light (see figures).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 10-11, 18, 22 and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe foreign patent document JP2006098820.
Regarding claim 1 Watanabe discloses an image projection system (title e.g. figures 2-3), comprising: at least one optical element configured to collect image light near a pupil of an eyeball (e.g. optical system3); and a projection device that includes a projection optical device configured to emit the image light (e.g. projection optics), wherein the image light includes a plurality of light beams, each light beam of the plurality of light beams includes a chief ray and marginal rays, and chief rays of the image light incident to the at least one optical element are substantially parallel to an optical axis (this is interpreted as the light incident on the optical element as being telecentric/substantially collimated, see 112 rejection above, this feature is seen in figures 2-3 & paragraph [0009] “an optical system using parallel light”).
Regarding a focal/image plane/points in front of the optical element (112 interpretation of “each light beam of the plurality of light beams has a focal point in front of the at least one optical element”) – it is inherent in the device seen in figures 2-3 that there is a focal/image plane/points, since the purpose of a display is to display an image. There are a limited number of positions for such a focal/image plane/points to be: (1) in front of, (2) at or (3) behind the optical element. It has been held that where there are only a finite number of predictable identifiable solutions, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try the known options within his or her technical grasp. See KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) and MPEP 2143. One would be motivated to have the focal/image plane/points to be in front of the optical element to reduce pixelation and to work in conjunction with the optical element to display a comfortable image. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for telecentric rays seen in figures 2-3 disclosed by Watanabe to be in front of the optical element for the purpose of reducing pixelation and to work in conjunction with the optical element to display a comfortable image and since there are only a finite number of predictable identifiable solutions, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try the known options within his or her technical grasp.
Regarding claim 3 Watanabe teaches the image projection system according to claim 1, as set forth above. Watanabe further discloses wherein the at least one optical element is in contact with a surface of the eyeball (paragraph [0007] “if the eyepiece optical means is composed of a hologram element, it can be affixed or formed on a spectacle lens or a contact lens, and the eyeglass or contact lens itself can be used as an eyepiece optical means”).
Regarding claim 4 Watanabe teaches the image projection system according to claim 3, as set forth above. Watanabe further discloses wherein a positional relationship between the at least one optical element and the pupil is fixed (inherent for a contact lens).
Regarding claim 6 Watanabe teaches the image projection system according to claim 1, as set forth above. Watanabe further discloses wherein the at least one optical element has a curved surface (e.g. see figure 2), and a curvature center of the curved surface of the at least one optical element and a curvature center of a curved surface of the eyeball are substantially concentric (e.g. see figure 2).
Regarding claim 7 Watanabe teaches the image projection system according to claim 1, as set forth above. Watanabe further discloses wherein the at least one optical element is a holographic optical element (paragraph [0007] “the eyepiece optical means is composed of a hologram element” e.g. figure 3).
Regarding claim 10 Watanabe teaches the image projection system according to claim 1, as set forth above. Watanabe further discloses wherein the projection optical device includes a partial multiplexing member, and the partial multiplexing member is configured to one of reflect or diffract the image light to reach the at least one optical element (paragraph [0008] discusses various displays that inherently multiplex to create an image, e.g. an LCD would diffract light from high brigtness LEDs note in paragraph [0008] see figure 3).
Regarding claim 11 Watanabe teaches the image projection system according to claim 1, as set forth above. Watanabe further discloses wherein the at least one optical element includes a holographic optical element layer(paragraph [0007] “the eyepiece optical means is composed of a hologram element” e.g. see figure 3), and the holographic optical element layer is configured to diffract the image light incident to the at least one optical element to be collected near the pupil (e.g. see figure 3).
Regarding claim 18 Watanabe teaches the image projection system according to claim 1, as set forth above. Watanabe further discloses wherein the at least one optical element includes a holographic optical element layer (paragraph [0007] “the eyepiece optical means is composed of a hologram element” e.g. figure 3), and the holographic optical element layer is configured to diffract (axiomatic) the image light incident on the at least one optical element to be collected on one of a front side of the pupil or a back side of the pupil (see figure 3).
Regarding claim 22, under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986) see MPEP 2112.02. Since claim 22 recite the normal use of the device in claim 1 claim 22 is rejected as inherent.
Regarding claim 24 Watanabe teaches the image projection system according to claim 1, as set forth above. Watanabe further discloses wherein a positional relationship between the at least one optical element and the eyeball is fixed (paragraph [0007] “the eyepiece optical means is composed of a hologram element, it can be affixed or formed on a spectacle lens or a contact lens, and the eyeglass or contact lens itself can be used as an eyepiece optical means” the position between a spectacle lens or a contact lens and the eyeball is fixed).
Regarding claim 25 Watanabe teaches the image projection system according to claim 1, as set forth above. Watanabe further discloses wherein the chief rays cover an entirety of the pupil (inherent for proper operation, see 112 rejection above, also see figures 2-3).
Regarding claim 26 Watanabe teaches the image projection system according to claim 1, as set forth above. Watanabe further discloses wherein the projection optical device includes a two-dimensional array display element (paragraph [0008] “1.3-inch LCD”), and the two-dimensional array display element forms the image light (paragraph [0008] “1.3-inch LCD of a display device to become a projected image. As the backlight, a known one in which a plurality of high-brightness LEDs are combined with a filter is used, and monochromatic image light having a wavelength band of 30 nm centered on 520 nm is generated. Here, an LCD + high-brightness LED is used as a display device. However, a CRT, a plasma display, an LCD + lamp, or the like may be used if the wavelength bandwidth of generated light is limited and the luminance is sufficient” see figures 2-3).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe foreign patent document JP2006098820 in view of Yamamoto US Patent Application Publication 2010/0045571, of record.
Regarding claim 13 Watanabe teaches the image projection system according to claim 11, as set forth above. Watanabe further discloses wherein the holographic optical element layer is configured to diffract the image light having different wavelengths (paragraph [0011] “as shown in FIG. 4, a hologram having three wavelengths of light as a light source is used to refract only light of each wavelength”)
Watanabe does not specifically disclose that the holographic optical element layer diffracting multiple wavelengths includes a plurality of layers.
Yamamoto teaches a similar video projection system (e.g. see figures 1-2) including a two dimensional display (e.g. combination of a light source 101, wavefront shape change unit 102 & scan unit 103) that project light to a contact lens (e.g. contact lens) that has an optical element (e.g. unit 104) with a holographic optical layer/element to diffract different colors/wavelengths of light (paragraph [0097]); and further teaches said holographic optical layer/element can be in the form of multiple layers to diffract for the purpose of directing only the light having the wavelength of the light source and not the light accounting for the major part of the light from the external world having wavelengths other than the wavelength of the light source and allowing the contact lens/optical element to be thinner, and thus reducing the discomfort of wearing the contact lens (paragraph [0097]). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the optical element in the display disclosed by Watanabe to have the holographic optical element include a include a plurality of layers as taught by Yamamoto for the purpose of diffracting only the light having the wavelength of the light source and not the light accounting for the major part of the light from the external world having wavelengths other than the wavelength of the light source and allowing the holographic deflection unit to be thinner, and thus reducing the discomfort of wearing the contact lens.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe foreign patent document JP2006098820 in view of Akkaya et al. US Patent Application Publication 2019/0346918, of record.
Regarding claim 19 Watanabe teaches the image projection system according to claim 18, as set forth above. Watanabe does not disclose it is further comprising: an eyeball position detection system configured to detect a position of the eyeball with respect to the at least one optical element; and a central processing unit (CPU) configured to: specify, based on the detected position of the eyeball, a light beam group that reaches a retina; and control the projection optical device form the image light with the light beam group.
Akkaya teaches a similar image projection system (title e.g. figures 1 & 3-5 head-mounted display/HMD device x00 ) including an optical element (e.g. 124 and/or 120, OR 324 and/or 306, OR 424 and/or 406, OR 524, 506 and/or 530) configured to collect image light near a pupil of an eyeball (see figures 1 & 3-5); and a projection device that includes a projection optical system (e.g. combination of optical projection source x28 & waveguide combiner x24 OR microdisplay 114, 318, 518 OR the combination of microdisplay 418 & opaque mirror 432) configured to emit the image light (axiomatic); and further taches an eyeball position detection system configured to detect a position of the eyeball with respect to the optical element (paragraph [0018] discloses eye-tracking assembly 134 has a sensor e.g. eye-tracking assembly 134, 320, 420 OR 520); and a central processing unit (e.g. control electronics 104, 310, 410 OR 510) configured to: inter alia paragraph [0019] discusses changing the images to accommodate the user) for the purpose of facilitating consistency between the accommodation cue and the vergence cue (paragraph [0019]). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the display disclosed by Watanabe to havean eyeball position detection system configured to detect a position of the eyeball with respect to the at least one optical element; and a central processing unit (CPU) configured to: specify, based on the detected position of the eyeball, a light beam group that reaches a retina; and control the projection optical device form the image light with the light beam group as taught by Akkaya for the purpose of facilitating consistency between the accommodation cue and the vergence cue.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bradski et al. US Patent Application Publication 2015/0178939; in regards to a similar image projection system (title, e.g. figure 7A) and further teaches the output could be telecentric (paragraph [0066]) for the purpose of adjusting the focus while keeping magnification constant (paragraph [0066]).
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 George G King whose telephone number is (303)297-4273. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571) 272-2333. 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.
/George G. King/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 January 29, 2026
1 As evidenced by Hecht “Optics, Second Edition” 1987, pages 141-151 e.g. see figure 5.35; and SPIE Optopedia webpage “Marginal and Chief Rays” https://spie.org/publications/spie-publication-resources/optipedia-free-optics-information/pm92_161_marginal_chief_rays, citing M. J. Kidger “Fundamental Optical Design” 2001 figure 1.7.
2 The examiner uses the term “generally” since the drawing do not clearly illustrate individual chief and marginal rays, e.g. see Hecht figure 5.35. However, the three bundles might in a wishy-washy way inconclusively imply they contain chief rays and the center bundle might inconclusively imply it contains marginal rays. This issue is exacerbated since the figures only show a waist and no clear aperture is shown or discussed in the specification, and the specification does not use these terms of art. For clarity, the call outs of “art understood” rays added by the examiner to figure 1A are incorrect and at best are misleading.
3 It is noted that the drawings have labels instead of reference numbers. A translation of pertinent labels is:
PNG
media_image4.png
58
248
media_image4.png
Greyscale
mounted optical system
PNG
media_image5.png
53
236
media_image5.png
Greyscale
department of projection optics
PNG
media_image6.png
45
90
media_image6.png
Greyscale
virtual image
PNG
media_image7.png
45
186
media_image7.png
Greyscale
hologram