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 .
The instant application having Application No. 17/787,724 filed on 6/21/2022 is presented for examination by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 3/2/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Sato (JP 2004133222 A)(Figure 8A), in view of Jeong (US 6654121 B1), and further in view of Sato (JP 2004133222 A)(Figure 1B).
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.
Claims 1, 3-10, and 15-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (JP 2004133222 A)(Figure 8A)(see attached machine translation), in view of Jeong (US 6654121 B1), and further in view of Sato (JP 2004133222 A)(Figure 1B)(see attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Sato (Figure 8A) discloses an ophthalmic device having adjustable filtering properties, in at least Figure 8A, comprising: at least one polarizer (29 “polarizer”) and at least one half-wave plate (17a, 17b “half-wave plate”), and a polarized beam of light (paragraph 0141 indicates that the input of 17a, 17b is polarized light) that successively meets said at least one half-wave plate (17a, 17b “half-wave plate”) and then said at least one polarizer (29 “polarizer”, Figure 8A shows the light from the image display meets 17b and then 29R). However, Sato does not teach at least one half-wave plate that is rotatable with respect to said at least one polarizer wherein rotation of said at least one half-wave plate with respect to said at least one polarizer adjusts said filtering properties, and wherein said polarizer is rotatable with respect to said half-wave plate.
Jeong teaches at least one half-wave plate (300 “phase retarder”, Figure 3) that is rotatable with respect to said at least one polarizer (310 “polarizer”, column 4, lines 32-44 state “Referring to FIG. 3, the incident light sequentially propagates through a phase retarder 300 rotating at a first constant speed in one direction, a polarizer 310 rotating at a second constant speed in an opposite direction, a detector 320, and a signal processing unit 330. The phase retarder 300 generates a phase difference between the polarized components that are incident in the directions of the fast and slow axes. This phase difference causes change in the state of polarization of the light that has propagated through the phase retarder 300. Therefore, if the phase retarder 300 rotates at a constant speed, the state of polarization of the light likewise changes periodically”, Figure 3) wherein rotation of said at least one half-wave plate (300 “phase retarder”) with respect to said at least one polarizer (310 “polarizer”) adjusts said filtering properties for a polarized beam of light that successively meets at least one half-wave plate (300 “phase retarder”) and then said at least one polarizer (310 “polarizer”, column 4, lines 32-44, Figure 3 shows that a beam of light is initially incident upon 300 “phase retarder” and then subsequently incident upon 310 “polarizer”).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the ophthalmic device of Sato (Figure 8A) modified by at least one half-wave plate that is rotatable with respect to said at least one polarizer, wherein rotation of said at least one half-wave plate with respect to said at least one polarizer adjusts said filtering properties for a polarized beam of light that successively meets said at least one half-wave plate and then said at least one polarizer, as taught by Jeong, in order to change the state of polarization of the light (column 4, lines 32-44).
Sato (Figure 1B) teaches wherein said polarizer (29 “polarizer”) is rotatable (paragraph 0081 of translation states “rotating the polarizing plate 29 by 180 degrees”) with respect to said half-wave plate (17a, 17b “half-wave plate”, Figure 1B shows the half-wave plate is not rotating).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the polarizer and half-wave plate of Sato (Figure 8A) modified by making the polarizer rotatable, as taught by Sato (Figure 1B), in order to improve the ease and accuracy of the position adjustment (paragraph 0081 of translation).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Sato (Figure 8A), Jeong, and Sato (Figure 1B) meets all the limitations of claim 1, however Sato (Figure 8A) does not disclose wherein said half-wave plate can be rotated, wherein said half-wave plate can be rotated at least on a range of angles of 45.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize a half-wave plate such that said half-wave plate can be rotated at least on a range of angles of 45, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Antonie 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); In re Boesch 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Sato (Figure 8A), Jeong, and Sato (Figure 1B) meets all the limitations of claim 3 and Sato (Figure 8A) further discloses a half-wave plate (17a, 17b “half-wave plate”) and polarizer (29 “polarizer”), however Sato (Figure 8A) does not disclose wherein said range of angles of 45 is from 0 to 45 or from 90 to 45 between a fast axis of said half-wave plate and a polarization axis of said polarizer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize a half-wave plate such that said range of angles of 45 is from 0 to 45 or from 90 to 45 between a fast axis of said half-wave plate and a polarization axis of said polarizer, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Antonie 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); In re Boesch 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Sato (Figure 8A), Jeong, and Sato (Figure 1B) meets all the limitations of claim 4 and Sato (Figure 8A) further discloses wherein said filtering properties include a transmittance of said ophthalmic device with respect to a polarized component of said polarized beam of light (paragraph 0151 of translation states “The light polarized in a predetermined polarization angle direction, which is emitted from the first phase difference plate and is separated by passing through the first phase difference plate, is incident on the second phase difference plate”), said transmittance being adjustable on a predetermined range (paragraph 0151 of translation states “The light polarized in a predetermined polarization angle direction…”).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Sato (Figure 8A), Jeong, and Sato (Figure 1B) meets all the limitations of claim 1 and Sato (Figure 8A) further discloses at least one ophthalmic lens on which is fixed, or which is integrally formed with, said polarizer (29 “polarizer”, Figure 8A shows the polarizer being integrally formed with a lens in polarizing glasses).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Sato (Figure 8A), Jeong, and Sato (Figure 1B) meets all the limitations of claim 6 and Sato (Figure 8A) further discloses wherein said at least one ophthalmic lens has corrective optical properties (the lenses within the polarizing glasses of Figure 8A are polarizers which only allow light having a certain polarization to pass through, thereby acting as a corrective optical property).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Sato (Figure 8A), Jeong, and Sato (Figure 1B) meets all the limitations of claim 1 and Sato (Figure 8A) further discloses at least a frame (“polarizing glasses”, Figures 8A,) in which is fixedly mounted said polarizer (29 “polarizer”, paragraph 0116 of translation states “The polarizing glasses 29 of FIG. 8A have polarizing plates 29L and 29R”, and paragraph 0058 of translation states “in order to secure an optimal observation position, it is preferable that the polarizing means is fixed to the position holding means or the position holding means is fixed to the polarizing means”) and in which is mounted said half-wave plate (17a, 17b “half-wave plate”, paragraph 0116 of translation states “the half-wave plate 17b is provided on the front surface of one polarizing plate 29R”, and Figure 8A shows that the half-wave plate is rotationally mounted, Figure 8A). However, Sato (Figure 8A) does not disclose rotationally mounted half-wave plate.
Jeong teaches rotationally mounted half-wave plate (300 “phase retarder”, column 4, lines 32-44).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the ophthalmic device of Sato (Figure 8A) modified by rotationally mounted half-wave plate, as taught by Jeong, in order to change the state of polarization of the light (column 4, lines 32-44).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Sato (Figure 8A), Jeong, and Sato (Figure 1B) meets all the limitations of claim 8 and Sato (Figure 8A) further discloses wherein said frame (“polarizing glasses”) has a conventional wearing position (Figures 8A and 8b show the lenses are oriented horizontally with respect to each other and are generally vertically oriented) and the polarization axis of said polarizer (29 “polarizer”) is oriented generally vertically when said frame (“polarizing glasses”) is in said conventional wearing position (Figure 8A).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Sato (Figure 8A), Jeong, and Sato (Figure 1B) meets all the limitations of claim 8 and Sato (Figure 8A) further discloses wherein said frame (“polarizing glasses”) is a spectacle frame (Figures 8A show that the polarizing glasses are a spectacle frame) having two bearing portions (see examiner’s markup of Figure 8A) into each of which is at least partially mounted one said polarizer (29 “polarizer”) and one said half- wave plate (17a, 17b “half-wave plate”).
Below is an examiner’s markup of Figure 8A of Sato (Figure 8A), pointing out two bearing portions.
PNG
media_image1.png
579
821
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Sato (Figure 8A), Jeong, and Sato (Figure 1B) meets all the limitations of claim 1 and Sato (Figure 8A) further discloses at least one ophthalmic lens on which is fixed said polarizer (29 “polarizer”, Figure 8A shows the polarizer being fixed to a lens in polarizing glasses).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Sato (Figure 8A), Jeong, and Sato (Figure 1B) meets all the limitations of claim 3 and Sato (Figure 8A) further discloses at least one ophthalmic lens on which is fixed, or which is integrally formed with, said polarizer (29 “polarizer”, Figure 8A shows the polarizer being integrally formed with a lens in polarizing glasses).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Sato (Figure 8A), Jeong, and Sato (Figure 1B) meets all the limitations of claim 4 and Sato (Figure 8A) further discloses at least one ophthalmic lens on which is fixed, or which is integrally formed with, said polarizer (29 “polarizer”, Figure 8A shows the polarizer being integrally formed with a lens in polarizing glasses).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Sato (Figure 8A), Jeong, and Sato (Figure 1B) meets all the limitations of claim 5 and Sato (Figure 8A) further discloses at least one ophthalmic lens on which is fixed, or which is integrally formed with, said polarizer (29 “polarizer”, Figure 8A shows the polarizer being integrally formed with a lens in polarizing glasses).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Sato (Figure 8A), Jeong, and Sato (Figure 1B) meets all the limitations of claim 1 and Sato (Figure 8A) further discloses at least a frame (“polarizing glasses”, Figures 8A, 8b) in which is fixedly mounted said polarizer (29 “polarizer”, paragraph 0116 of translation states “The polarizing glasses 29 of FIG. 8A have polarizing plates 29L and 29R”, and paragraph 0058 of translation states “in order to secure an optimal observation position, it is preferable that the polarizing means is fixed to the position holding means or the position holding means is fixed to the polarizing means”) and in which is rotationally mounted said half-wave plate (17a, 17b “half-wave plate”, paragraph 0116 of translation states “the half-wave plate 17b is provided on the front surface of one polarizing plate 29R”, and Figure 8A shows that the half-wave plate is rotationally mounted), wherein the half-wave plate (17a, 17b “half-wave plate”) is rotatable mounted in the frame (“polarizing glasses”) to be free to rotate about an axial direction (Figure 8A shows that the half-wave plate is rotationally mounted). However, Sato (Figure 8A) does not disclose the half-wave plate is rotatable with respect to the polarizer.
Jeong teaches the half-wave plate (300 “phase retarder”) is rotatable with respect to the polarizer (310 “polarizer”, column 4, lines 32-44 state “Referring to FIG. 3, the incident light sequentially propagates through a phase retarder 300 rotating at a first constant speed in one direction, a polarizer 310 rotating at a second constant speed in an opposite direction, a detector 320, and a signal processing unit 330. The phase retarder 300 generates a phase difference between the polarized components that are incident in the directions of the fast and slow axes. This phase difference causes change in the state of polarization of the light that has propagated through the phase retarder 300. Therefore, if the phase retarder 300 rotates at a constant speed, the state of polarization of the light likewise changes periodically”).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the ophthalmic device of Sato (Figure 8A) modified by the half-wave plate is rotatable with respect to the polarizer, as taught by Jeong, in order to change the state of polarization of the light (column 4, lines 32-44).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Sato (Figure 8A), Jeong, and Sato (Figure 1B) meets all the limitations of claim 1, however Sato (Figure 8A) does not disclose having a conventional wearing position in which the eye of the user is situated opposite the polarizer.
Sato (Figure 1B) teaches having a conventional wearing position in which the eye of the user (22L “left eye”, 22R “right eye”) is situated opposite the polarizer (29 “polarizing plate”, Figure 1B).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the ophthalmic device of Sato (Figure 8A) modified by having a conventional wearing position in which the eye of the user is situated opposite the polarizer, as taught by Sato (Figure 1B), in order to allow for easy and accurate adjustment of the polarizer (paragraph 0081).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (JP 2004133222 A)(Figure 8A)(see attached machine translation), in view of Jeong (US 6654121 B1), in view of Sato (JP 2004133222 A)(Figure 1B)(see attached machine translation), and further in view of Karasawa (US 5663779 A).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Sato (Figure 8A), Jeong, and Sato (Figure 1B) meets all the limitations of claim 10 and Sato (Figure 8A) further discloses said spectacle frame (“polarizing glasses”) and a half-wave plate (17a, 17b “half-wave plate”). However, Sato (Figure 8A) does not disclose said spectacle frame comprises a synchronization member connected to said two bearing portions and configured such that a rotating movement of said half-wave plate in a first of said bearing portions is replicated by said half-wave plate in a second of said bearing portions, and reciprocally.
Jeong teaches rotating movement of said half-wave plate (300 “phase retarder”, column 4, lines 32-44).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the ophthalmic device of Sato (Figure 8A) modified by rotating movement of said half-wave plate, as taught by Jeong, in order to change the state of polarization of the light (column 4, lines 32-44).
Karasawa teaches said spectacle frame (6 “spectacle frame”) comprises a synchronization member (100 “semi-flexible belt”) connected to said two bearing portions (see examiner’s markup of Figure 8, column 5, lines 45-55 states "belt 100 rides in a channel 106 formed in the mating frame elements 6a, 6b") and configured such that a rotating movement of said half-wave plate in a first of said bearing portions is replicated by said half-wave plate in a second of said bearing portions (column 5, lines 56-58 states "As belt 100 moves back and forth in the direction of the arrows in FIGS. 5 and 6, the associated internal lens element 56 is rotated accordingly" and column 6, lines 1-3 states “the user simultaneously rotates both internal lens elements 56 connected by belt 100”), and reciprocally (column 6, lines 1-3).
Below is an examiner’s markup of Figure 8 of Karasawa, pointing out two bearing portions.
PNG
media_image2.png
585
903
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the spectacle frames and half-wave plates of Sato (Figure 8A) modified by a synchronization member, as taught by Karasawa, in order to allow the half-wave plates to rotate the exact same amount (column 6, lines 1-3).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (JP 2004133222 A)(Figure 8A)(see attached machine translation), in view of Jeong (US 6654121 B1), in view of Sato (JP 2004133222 A)(Figure 1B)(see attached machine translation), and further in view of Sato (JP 2004133222 A)(Figure 1A)(see attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Sato (Figure 8A), Jeong, and Sato (Figure 1B) meets all the limitations of claim 1 and Sato (Figure 8A) further discloses a polarizer (29 “polarizer”) and a half-wave plate (17a, 17b “half-wave plate”), but does not disclose at least another polarizer which is fixed relative to said polarizer and that is positioned such that said half-wave plate is located between said polarizer and said another polarizer.
Sato (Figure 1A) teaches at least another polarizer (46 “polarizer”) which is fixed relative to said polarizer (29 “polarizer”, paragraph 0059 of translation states “the position holding mechanism holds the polarization unit … and maintains the position relationship”) and that is positioned such that said half-wave plate (17a, 17b “half-wave plate”) is located between said polarizer (29 “polarizer”) and said another polarizer (46 “polarizer”, paragraph 0076 of translation states "the two half-wave plates 17a and 17b existing between the polarizer 46 and the polarizer 29", Figure 8).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the polarizer and half-wave plate of Sato (Figure 8A) modified by another polarizer such that the half-wave plate is located between them, as taught by Sato (Figure 1A), in order to allow the rotating half-wave plate to control the amount of light that passes through the lens, since it is well known in the art that no light passes through perpendicular polarizers unless a polarizer or wave plate exists between them at an alternate angle.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Sato (Figure 8A), Jeong, Sato (Figure 1B), and Sato (Figure 1A) meets all the limitations of claim 12 and Sato (Figure 8A) further discloses a polarizer (29 “polarizer”), however Sato (Figure 8A) does not disclose wherein a polarization axis of said polarizer is substantially perpendicular or parallel to a polarization axis of said another polarizer.
Sato (Figure 1A) teaches wherein a polarization axis of said polarizer (29 “polarizer”) is substantially perpendicular or parallel to a polarization axis of said another polarizer (46 “polarizer”, paragraph 0074 of translation states "the polarizing angles of the polarizing plate 46 and the polarizing plate 29 are orthogonal”).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the polarizer of Sato (Figure 8A) modified by another polarizer having a polarization axis perpendicular or parallel to the first polarizer, as taught by Sato (Figure 1A), in order to allow the rotating half-wave plate to control the amount of light that passes through the lens, since it is well known in the art that no light passes through perpendicular polarizers unless a polarizer or wave plate exists between them at an alternate angle.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (JP 2004133222 A)(Figure 8A)(see attached machine translation), in view of Jeong (US 6654121 B1), in view of Sato (JP 2004133222 A)(Figure 1B)(see attached machine translation), and in view of Geng (CN 103926574 A)(see attached machine translation), further in view of Karasawa (US 5663779 A).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Sato (Figure 8A), Jeong, and Sato (Figure 1B) meets all the limitations of claim 1 and Sato (Figure 8A) further discloses at least an actuator (“mechanical angle adjustment mechanism”, paragraph 0062 of translation), a half-wave plate (17a, 17b “half-wave plate”), and a carrier (16 “hinge unit”, Figure 8A shows the half-wave plate being connected to 16 “hinge unit”), the half-wave plate being integrated with the lens in Figure 8A), a carrier (16 “hinge unit”) of said ophthalmic device which is fixed to (Figure 8A shows that 16 “hinge unit” is fixed to 17a, 17b “half-wave plate”) and at least partially surrounds said half- wave plate (17a, 17b “half-wave plate”, Figure 8A shows that 16 “hinge unit” partially surrounds 17a, 17b “half-wave plate”). However, Sato (Figure 8A) does not disclose at least an actuator configured for rotating said half-wave plate, said actuator extending from a carrier of said ophthalmic device.
Geng teaches at least an actuator (5 “rotating motor”) configured for rotating said half-wave plate (4 “1/2 wave plate”, paragraph 0038 states “the motor servo control system 12 controls the rotation motor 5 drives a 1/2 wave plate 4 to rotate”).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the ophthalmic device of Sato (Figure 8A) modified by at least an actuator configured for rotating said half-wave plate, as taught by Geng, in order to remove background light of the optical system (paragraph 0022).
Karasawa teaches at least an actuator (52 “main gear”) configured for rotating a lens (column 4, lines 8-19 states "main gear 52 can be provided with indicia showing the degree of rotation of internal lenses 56”, said actuator (52 “main gear”) extending from a carrier of said ophthalmic device (column 4, lines 8-19 states "A main gear 52 is pivotably attached to a pivot 54 affixed to nose piece 8", and column 3, lines 33-34 states "a spectacle frame 6 having a nose piece 8", Figures 1, 3).
Column 4, lines 8-19 states “A gear enclosure plate 43 is provided with stop 53 which limits the rotational arc of main gear 52 in relation to the nose piece 8. Gear enclosure plate 43 attaches to nose piece 8 to partially enclose gears 52 and 42.” Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the actuator and rotating half-wave plate of Hruska modified by the actuator extending from a carrier and fixed to a half-wave plate, as taught by Karasawa, in order to conceal the actuator within the frame and conveniently place stops to restrict the motion of the half-wave plates to a certain range (column 4, lines 8-19).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (JP 2004133222 A)(Figure 8A)(see attached machine translation), in view of Jeong (US 6654121 B1), in view of Sato (JP 2004133222 A)(Figure 1B)(see attached machine translation), and further in view of Geng (CN 103926574 A)(see attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Sato (Figure 8A), Jeong, and Sato (Figure 1B) meets all the limitations of claim 1 and Sato (Figure 8A) further discloses at least a spectacle frame (“polarizing glasses”, Figures 8A, 8b), a first eyeglass (R “right-eye”, Figure 8A), and a second eyeglass (L “left-eye”, Figure 8A), wherein the first eyeglass (R “right-eye”, Figure 8A) and the second eyeglass (L “left-eye”, Figure 8A) are horizontally aligned (Figure 8A) and are each vertically oriented (Figure 8A), wherein the frame (“polarizing glasses”) comprises a first bearing portion (see examiner’s markup of Figure 8A) mounting the first eyeglass (R “right-eye”, Figure 8A) and a second bearing portion (see examiner’s markup of Figure 8A) mounting the second eyeglass (L “left-eye”, Figure 8A), wherein said first eyeglass (R “right-eye”) comprises said polarizer (29R “polarizing plate”), and said half-wave plate (17b “half-wave plate”), and wherein said polarizer (29R “polarizing plate”) is fixedly mounted in the first bearing portion (see examiner’s markup of Figure 8A), wherein the half-wave plate (17a, 17b “half-wave plate”) is rotatable mounted in the first bearing portion (see examiner’s markup of Figure 8A) to be free to rotate about an axial direction (Figure 8A shows that the half-wave plate is rotationally mounted) according to which the half-wave plate (17a, 17b “half-wave plate”), and the rear polarizer (29 “polarizer”) are aligned, the half-wave plate (17a, 17b “half-wave plate”) thus being rotationally mounted in the frame (Figure 8A shows that the half-wave plate is rotationally mounted in “polarizing glasses”), and the rear polarizer (29 “polarizer”) not being free to rotate with respect to the first bearing portion (see examiner’s markup of Figure 8A). However, Sato (Figure 8A) does not disclose the half-wave plate being rotatable with respect to the polarizer, a front member, said half-wave plate being located between the front member and said polarizer, according to which the front member, the half-wave plate, and the rear polarizer are aligned.
Geng teaches the half-wave plate (4 “1/2 wave plate”) being rotatable with respect to the polarizer (7 “polarizer”, paragraph 0038 states “the motor servo control system 12 controls the rotation motor 5 drives a 1/2 wave plate 4 to rotate”, paragraph 0033 states “respectively rotating polarizer 7 and 1/2 wave plate 4” where “respectively rotating” is understood to mean separate or individual rotation, allowing 4 “1/2 wave plate” to rotate separately from 7 “polarizer”, paragraphs 0033-0035), a front member (3 “collimating lens”), said half-wave plate (4 “1/2 wave plate”) being located between the front member (3 “collimating lens”) and said polarizer (7 “polarizer”, Figure 1), according to which the front member (3 “collimating lens”), the half-wave plate (4 “1/2 wave plate”), and the rear polarizer (7 “polarizer”) are aligned (Figure 1), and the front member (3 “collimating lens”) not being free to rotate (claim 1 and paragraph 0038 both indicate that the only driver configured to rotate an element is 5 “rotating motor”, which is only connected to 4 “1/2 wave plate”, so therefore 3 “collimating lens” does not have a driver configured to rotate it and therefore does not rotate).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the ophthalmic device of Sato (Figure 8A) modified by the half-wave plate being rotatable with respect to the polarizer, as taught by Geng, in order to remove background light of the optical system (paragraph 0022).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAINA M SWANSON whose telephone number is (703)756-5809. 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, Pinping Sun can be reached at 571-270-1284. 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.
/ALAINA MARIE SWANSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/WILLIAM R ALEXANDER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights