Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/907,669

OPTICAL APPARATUS AND HEAD-MOUNTED DEVICE

Final Rejection §102
Filed
Mar 07, 2023
Examiner
NIGAM, NATASHA
Art Unit
2872
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
BEIJING UNICORN TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.
OA Round
2 (Final)
65%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
89%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 65% — above average
65%
Career Allow Rate
17 granted / 26 resolved
-2.6% vs TC avg
Strong +23% interview lift
Without
With
+23.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
41 currently pending
Career history
67
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.4%
-38.6% vs TC avg
§103
47.4%
+7.4% vs TC avg
§102
22.1%
-17.9% vs TC avg
§112
26.0%
-14.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 26 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 . Response to Amendment The Amendment filed 09/29/2025 has been entered. Claim 15 has been canceled. Claims 1-14 and 16-18 are allowed. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 09/09/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding independent claims 1 and 16, applicant’s arguments in combination with the amendments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, examiner agrees that the prior art does not disclose a configuration in which interference light entering from below the second optical assembly cannot be absorbed by the first optical assembly, resulting in the interference light reaching the user’s eye and declining user experience. Regarding independent claim 19, applicant’s arguments in combination with the amendments have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, the newly cited rejection under Carollo discloses all of the claimed features of claim 19. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Carollo et al. (US 20170227770 A1), hereinafter Carollo. Regarding independent claim 19, Carollo discloses a head-mounted device comprising an optical apparatus, wherein the head-mounted device has a helmet shape or an eyeglass shape (Fig. 1), and the optical apparatus comprises: an image assembly (204; Fig. 3; ¶0049) configured to emit image light (Fig. 3); a first polarizer (302; Fig. 3; ¶0056) having a first side adjacent to the image assembly (204) and a second side away from the image assembly (204) (Fig. 3), and configured to allow light in a first polarization state (y; Fig. 3; ¶0056) to pass through and light in a second polarization state (x; Fig. 3) to be absorbed (implicit that linear polarizer 302 absorbs light in a perpendicular polarization), wherein directions of the light in the first polarization state (y) and the second polarization state (x) are perpendicular to each other (Fig. 3); a first wave plate (304; Fig. 3; ¶0056) having a first side adjacent to the first polarizer (302) and a second side away from the first polarizer (302) (Fig. 3); a second wave plate (308; Fig. 3; ¶0056) having a first side adjacent to the second side of the first wave plate (304) and a second side away from the second side of the first wave plate (304) (Fig. 3), and both the first wave plate (304) and the second wave plate (308) configured to: convert the light in the first polarization state (y) to light in a third polarization state (RCP; Fig. 3), the light in the third polarization state (RCP) to light in the first polarization state (y), the light in the second polarization state (x) to light in a fourth polarization state (LCP; Fig. 3), and the light in the fourth polarization state (LCP) to the light in the second polarization state (x) (Fig. 3), wherein rotation directions of the light in the third polarization state (RCP) and the fourth polarization state (LCP) are opposite (RCP and LCP are opposites; Fig. 3; ¶0060); a polarization beam splitter (310; Fig. 3; ¶0061) having a first side adjacent to the second side of the second wave plate (308) and a second side away from the second side of the second wave plate (308) (Fig. 3), and configured to reflect the light in the first polarization state (y) and transmit the light in the second polarization state (x) (Fig. 3); a linear polarization element (312; Fig. 3; ¶0061) arranged adjacent to the second side of polarization beam splitter (310), and configured to allow the light in the second polarization state (x) to pass therethrough (Fig. 3); and a transflective element (306; Fig. 3; ¶0056) configured to receive light transmitted through the second wave plate (308) (Fig. 3) and reflect light back to the second wave plate (308) (Fig. 3). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-14 and 16-18 are allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art, taken either singly or in combination, fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the features/limitations of applicant's independent claims, in such a manner that a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or § 103 would be proper. Regarding independent claim 1, the prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the optical apparatus comprising “an image assembly, a first optical assembly, a second optical assembly, and a third optical assembly, wherein: the image assembly configured to emit image light, the image assembly, the first optical assembly, the second optical assembly, and the third optical assembly are configured to enable that the image light is transmitted through the first optical assembly to the second optical assembly, then reflected by the second optical assembly to the third optical assembly, then reflected by the third optical assembly back to the second optical assembly and transmitted through the second optical assembly to enter a user's eye; the second optical assembly configured to block interference light incident on the second optical assembly from entering the user's eye; and the third optical assembly configured to block the image light from being transmitted through the third optical assembly into an external environment, wherein the first optical assembly is configured to enable light in a first polarization state to pass therethrough and light in a second polarization state to be absorbed, and the second optical assembly is configured to enable the light in the second polarization state to pass therethrough and the light in the first polarization state to be reflected, wherein directions of light in the first polarization state and the second polarization state are perpendicular to each other.” Specifically, the examiner agrees with the reasons set forth in the remarks of 09/29/2025. None of the previously cited documents disclose a configuration wherein the first optical assembly is configured to enable light in a first polarization state to pass through and light in a second polarization state to be absorbed and the second optical assembly is configured to enable light in the second polarization state to pass through and light in the first polarization state to be reflected, therefore interference light coming from under the second optical assembly cannot be absorbed by the first optical assembly as stated in the instant application. Further, although Carollo discloses a configuration wherein the first optical assembly is configured to enable light in a first polarization state to pass through and light in a second polarization state to be absorbed and the second optical assembly is configured to enable light in the second polarization state to pass through, the optical apparatus of Carollo does not disclose the second optical assembly is configured to block interference light incident on the second optical assembly from entering the user’s eye and the third optical assembly is configured to block the image light from being transmitted through the third optical assembly into an external environment. Specifically, Carollo is not configured for external light to enter the optical system, and it would not be obvious to modify Carollo accordingly. Regarding independent claim 16, the prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the optical apparatus comprising an image assembly configured to emit image light; a first polarizer configured to receive the image light emitted by the image assembly and enable light in a first polarization state to pass therethrough and light in a second polarization state to be absorbed, wherein directions of light in the first polarization state and the second polarization state are perpendicular to each other; a first wave plate configured to receive the image light in the first polarization state transmitted through the first polarizer and transmit the image light in a third polarization state, wherein the first wave plate is configured to convert the light in the first polarization state into the light in the third polarization state, and convert the light in the third polarization state into the light in the first polarization state, a second wave plate configured to receive the image light in the third polarization state transmitted through the first wave plate and convert the image light in the third polarization state into the first polarization state; a polarization beam splitter configured to receive the image light in the first polarization state converted by the second wave plate and reflect the image light in the first polarization state, wherein the polarization beam splitter is configured to enable the light in the second polarization state to pass through; and a transflective element configured to receive the image light in the third polarization state transmitted through the second wave plate and allow the image light in the third polarization state to pass through, wherein the transflective element is configured to reflect the image light in a fourth polarization state, wherein rotation directions of the light in the third polarization state and the fourth polarization state are opposite, wherein the second wave plate further configured to convert the image light in the fourth polarization state reflected by the transflective element into the image light in the second polarization state, wherein the polarization beam splitter is further configured to allow the image light in the second polarization state to enter the user's eye therethrough; wherein after ambient light passes through the transflective element, the second wave plate, and the polarization beam splitter in turn, the ambient light in the second polarization state enters the user's eye.” Specifically, the examiner agrees with the reasons set forth in the remarks of 09/29/2025. None of the previously cited documents disclose a configuration wherein the first polarizer is configured to enable light in a first polarization state to pass through and light in a second polarization state to be absorbed and the polarization beam splitter is configured to receive light in the first polarization state converted by the second wave plate and reflect the image light in the first polarization state and enable light in the second polarization state to pass through, therefore interference light coming from under the second optical assembly cannot be absorbed by the first optical assembly as stated in the instant application. Further, although Carollo discloses a configuration wherein the first polarizer is configured to enable light in a first polarization state to pass through and light in a second polarization state to be absorbed and the polarization beam splitter is configured receive light in the first polarization state converted by the second wave plate and reflect the image light in the first polarization state and enable light in the second polarization state to pass through, the optical apparatus of Carollo does not disclose after ambient light passes through the transflective element, the second wave plate, and the polarization beam splitter in turn, the ambient light in the second polarization state enters the user’s eye. Specifically, Carollo is not configured for external light to enter the optical system, and it would not be obvious to modify Carollo accordingly. Claims 20-21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 20, the closest prior art fails to disclose, either singly or in combination, all of the limitations of claim 20, including the limitation “wherein the optical apparatus further comprises a circular polarization element attached to a side of the transflective element away from the second wave plate, and the circular polarization element is configured to enable light in the fourth polarization state to pass therethrough and the light in the third polarization state to be absorbed.” Claim 21 depends on claim 20. Examiner’s Comment A telephone call was made to Attorney Fei Shen (68520) on November 19th, 2025 in order to propose an examiner’s amendment to cancel claims 19-21 and place the application into condition for allowance. The proposed amendment was declined on November 20th, 2025. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NATASHA NIGAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5423. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5. 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. /NATASHA NIGAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 November 24th, 2025 /George G. King/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 07, 2023
Application Filed
Jun 24, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102
Sep 03, 2025
Interview Requested
Sep 16, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Sep 16, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Sep 29, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 20, 2025
Examiner Interview (Telephonic)
Nov 24, 2025
Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601934
Removable Eyewear Filter
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12596206
ELECTRONIC DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12585082
LENS DRIVING DEVICE, AND CAMERA MODULE AND OPTICAL DEVICE INCLUDING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12571627
LASER EMITTER, DEPTH CAMERA AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12554178
OPTICAL SYSTEM AND APPARATUS HAVING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
65%
Grant Probability
89%
With Interview (+23.3%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 26 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month