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
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 02/17/2026 has been entered. Claim 1-2 and 5-6, 8-12 are now pending in the application. Claims 1 and 8 have been amended, claim 7 has been canceled and new claims 9-12 have been added by the Applicant.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Priority
As required by e M.P.E.P. 210, 214.03, acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on application JP2021-153662 (Japan).
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
However, to overcome a prior art rejection, applicant(s) must submit a translation of the foreign priority papers in order to perfect the claimed foreign priority because said papers has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. See MPEP § 213.04
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the new amended claims 1 and 8 now recited the limitation “wherein the eyepiece optical system has an eye relief of 18 mm or more” which is not sufficiently supported by the original specification or the drawings. Specifically, the original specification discloses that a distance (eye relief) E1 between the image display apparatus 100 and each eyeball of the observer is 18 mm, and that an eyepiece optical system having an eye relief of 10 mm or more. (see published specification, paragraphs [20, 31], original claim 7). More specifically, the specification explicitly states that “eyepiece optical systems 101 and 102 has an eye relief of 18 mm, but if the eye relief is longer than a predetermined length, external light is likely to intrude.” (see published specification, paragraph [31], emphasis added). Therefore the specification supports that the eye relief is 10 mm to 18 mm. There is no support that the eye relief is 18 mm or more. In fact as, as noted above, the application teaches away from eye relief being more than 18 mm, because then the external light is likely to intrude. Applicant pointed out support (e.g. paragraphs [19-20] of the original specification, or the published specification) only support one value of 18 mm for the eye relief, but does not appear to have written description of the new claim limitation noted above in the application as filed. Therefore the support for the limitation is not apparent (see MPEP 2163.04, Sec. I). The above limitation will be treated broadly, such that the eye relief can be below 18 mm or 18 mm. It is suggested to amend the claims and provide explanations for the support of the limitations in order to remove the new matter issues. Claims 2, 5-6 and 9-12 depend on claim 1 and therefore inherit the same deficiency.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 8 now recite the limitation “wherein the eyepiece optical system has an eye relief of 18 mm or more”, in last of both claims. However, this limitation is confusing because it is unclear how it should be treated, given that there is insufficient support for the limitation in the original disclosure (see 112(a) section above), and thus it us unclear if the range of values for the eye relief is one singular value of 18 mm, or certain range of values below 18 mm, or values slightly below 18 mm, 18mm but not above 18 mm? It is suggested to amend the claims and provide explanations in order to remove the indefiniteness issues. Claims 2, 5-6 and 9-12 depend on claim 1 and therefore inherit the same deficiency.
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 1-2, 6-8 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ronen et al. (hereafter Ronen, of record), US 20210271006 A1 in view of Chao et al. (hereafter Chao) US 20040263774 A1, and further in view of Tohara US 20210239985 A1.
In regard to independent claim 1, Ronen teaches (see Figs. 1-16) an optical apparatus (e.g. near-eye displays with scenery reflection suppression, see title, abstract, paragraphs [01-24, 55-60, 64-66, 89-100]) comprising:
an eyepiece optical system (POD, light guide 10 with optics, paragraphs [55-60, 64-66]), including a first linear polarization plate (e.g. one of polarization filters e.g. 160 U,I, paragraphs [4-24, 64-66, 89-100]) and configured to guide light from an image display element (POD display 2, source, SLM paragraphs [55-60, 64-66]) to an eye of an observer (observer’s eye, paragraphs [04-24, 55-60, 64-66, 89-100], e.g. Figs. 1, 10, 16); and
a second linear polarization plate disposed outside an optical path from the image display element to the eye of the observer (e.g. side polarizer 160S, Figs. 10, paragraphs [04-24, 89-100]), and
a light shielding unit (i.e. eyeglasses frame and sides 15 with lateral shade and with lateral polarizing shade element 160S, paragraphs [89-97, 20, 22-23, 55-60,65], as depicted in Figs. 10, 16, 1B),
wherein the first linear polarization plate is disposed closest to the observer in the eyepiece optical system (i.e. as 160 I closest to observer, paragraphs [4-24, 64-66, 89-100]),
wherein a transmission axis direction of the first linear polarization plate and a transmission axis direction of the second linear polarization plate are different from each other (i.e. as 160I and 160S are in crossed polarizer state e.g. one vertical one horizontal transmission axis, resulting in complete blocking of all side reflections while maintaining peripheral visibility, see paragraphs [89-97, 20, 22-23], Figs. 10, 16),
wherein a portion of the light shielding unit other than the second linear polarization plate is a support member for holding the second linear polarization plate (i.e. as eyeglasses frame side(s) 15 with portion for holding the lateral polarizing shade element 160S, paragraphs [89-97, 20, 22-23, 55-60], as depicted in Figs. 10,1B, with side portion of 15 is holding polarizing shade element 160S).
But Ronen does not explicitly disclose in the same example that the support member (frame side 15) is configured by a member that shields visible light (i.e. as the NED glasses have side 15 parts and materials, but it is unclear if they shield visible light, however the sides may have light blocking baffle(s) 130L-130R that block incident radiation from a range of glancing angles from reaching eye of the observer, see paragraphs [5-11, 67-75,112]).
However, as noted Ronen teaches in embodiment that the support member (frame side 15) is configured by a member that shields visible light (i.e. as frame sides may have light blocking baffle(s) 130L-130R mechanically supported by attachment to the support arrangement and projecting towards observer’s eye direction, so they block incident radiation from a range of glancing angles from reaching eye of the observer, while having minimal impact on the peripheral field of view of the observer, leaving the observer with an impression of an unrestricted field of view, see paragraphs [5-11, 67-75,112]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the near-eye display device polarization filtering embodiment with its’ display and support frame and sides to include eye cover(s) member that shields visible light according to teachings of Ronen embodiment using side baffle(s) that block incident radiation from a range of glancing angles from reaching eye of the observer, in order to block incident radiation from a range of glancing angles from reaching eye of the observer, while having minimal impact on the peripheral field of view of the observer, leaving the observer with an impression of an unrestricted field of view, see paragraphs [5-11, 67-69,73,112]).
But Ronen still does not disclose the details that the support member (frame side 15 as modified with baffles) is disposed to cover or enclose an entire circumference or perimeter of the second linear polarization plate (i.e. as eyeglasses frame sides 15 with lateral shade are show to hold the lateral polarizing shade element 160S, and baffle(s) 130 are implemented with mechanical support attachment to the frame side(s), paragraphs [67-69,73, 89-97, 20, 22-23, 55-60], as depicted in Figs. 8,10, 16, 1B).
However, Chao teaches in the same field of invention of eyeglasses frames with resilient structures and shields (see Figs. 1-4,11-12, Abstract, paragraphs [3,8-17, 41-51,57-65, 84-86]) and further teaches that the support member (frame side with sides, and shield(s) in 100, 1100,1200, e.g. side 120(140)(1104)(1204) in 112 and equivalents, see paragraphs [41-51,57-65, 84-86], Figs. 1-2,11-12) is disposed to cover or enclose an entire circumference or perimeter of the window plate (i.e. as side support shield 112 covers and encloses entire circumference or perimeter of the partially transparent side portion window tinted filter 144, 1110,1205, held in the side shield as it is desirable to better facilitate transmission of light through at least a portion of the side shield, and facilitate peripheral vision of the user, paragraphs [41-51,57-65, 84-86], Figs. 1-2, 11-12).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the near-eye display device with its’ display and support frame and sides baffle(s) and its’ side polarizer/filter of Ronen according to design arrangement where the support frame side is disposed to cover and encloses entire circumference or perimeter of the (partially) transparent side portions according to teachings of Chao, in order to provide that the polarizer filter is held in the side shield and to better facilitate transmission of light through at least a portion of the side shield, and facilitate peripheral vision of the user, paragraphs [41-51,57-65, 84-86]).
Further, Ronen does not explicitly specify that the eyepiece optical system has an eye relief of 18 mm or more (i.e. however, given the size of near-eye display 10,2 and it’s optical system size with projector, waveguide, collimating optics and polarizer 160 which in use is mounted on the head of the observer, given the size of the users head, nose, ears and other facial features, the optical system 10,2 has eye relief distance close to the above range, as depicted in Figs. 1, 10, 16, paragraphs [01-24, 55-60, 64-66, 89-100]).
However, Tohara teaches in the same field of invention of a image display apparatus (see Figs. 1-10, HMD 101, abstract, paragraphs [05-08, 26-32,35-39, 79-83]) and further teaches that optical system has an eye relief of 18 mm or more (i.e. as HMD display has eye relief E1 of 18 mm, allowing an observer wearing glasses can wear the HMD 101, and preventing the display lens of the device from becoming large, and thereby preventing the size of the 101 from becoming large, i.e. undesirably increasing the size of the HMD 101, see paragraphs [26-32,35-39, 79-83]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt and modify the near-eye display of Ronen by specifying the eye relief to 18 mm according to teachings of Tohara in order to prevent the display lens of the device from becoming large, and thereby preventing the size of the HMD device from becoming large and undesirably increasing the size of the HMD, while still providing ghost and birefringence reduction and improving viewing angle characteristics at a marginal view angle of an ocular optical system (see Tohara, paragraphs [5-7, 26-32,35-39, 79-83]).
Regarding claim 2, the Ronen-Chao-Tohara combination teaches the invention as set forth above, and Ronen teaches (see Figs. 1-16) that an angle formed between the transmission axis direction of the first linear polarization plate and the transmission axis direction of the second linear polarization plate is 70 degrees or more and 110 degrees or less (i.e. as 160I and 160S are in crossed polarizer state e.g. one vertical one horizontal transmission axis, resulting in complete blocking of all side reflections while maintaining peripheral visibility, see paragraphs [89-97, 20, 22-23], Figs. 10, 16).
Regarding claim 6, the Ronen-Chao-Tohara combination teaches the invention as set forth above, and Ronen teaches (see Figs. 1-16) that the eyepiece (10,2) optical system includes a polarization beam splitter disposed between the image display element and the first linear polarization plate (i.e. as PBS cube between source, SLM and polarizer e.g. 160I, paragraphs [55-59, 89-97], Figs. 1, 10).
In regard to independent claim 8, Ronen teaches (see Figs. 1-16) an image display apparatus (e.g. glasses with near-eye displays with scenery reflection suppression, see title, abstract, paragraphs [01-24, 55-60, 64-66, 89-100]) comprising:
an optical apparatus (near eye display projector optical display POD, waveguide, e.g. 10 paragraphs [01-24, 55-60]); and
an image display element (i.e. as PO including illumination source, spatial light modulator e.g. LCOS chip, paragraphs [01-24, 55-60], e.g. Figs. 1, 10, 16),
wherein the optical apparatus (near-eye display, POD, 2 with includes:
an eyepiece optical system (POD, light guide 10 with optics, collimating optics, paragraphs [55-60, 64-66]), including a first linear polarization plate (e.g. one of polarization filters e.g. 160 U,I, paragraphs [4-24, 64-66, 89-100]) and configured to guide light from an image display element (POD display 2, source, SLM paragraphs [55-60, 64-66]) to an eye of an observer (observer’s eye, paragraphs [04-24, 55-60, 64-66, 89-100], e.g. Figs. 1, 10, 16);
a second linear polarization plate disposed outside an optical path from the image display element to the eye of the observer (e.g. side polarizer 160S, Figs 10, paragraphs [04-24, 89-100]), and
a light shielding unit (i.e. eyeglasses sides 15 with lateral shade and with lateral polarizing shade element 160S, paragraphs [89-97, 20, 22-23, 55-60], as depicted in Figs. 10, 16, 1B),
wherein the first linear polarization plate is disposed closest to the observer in the eyepiece optical system (i.e. as 160 I closest to observer, paragraphs [4-24, 64-66, 89-100]), and
wherein a transmission axis direction of the first linear polarization plate and a transmission axis direction of the second linear polarization plate are different from each other (i.e. as 160I and 160S are in crossed polarizer state e.g. one vertical one horizontal transmission axis, resulting in complete blocking of all side reflections while maintaining peripheral visibility, see paragraphs [89-97, 20, 22-23], Figs. 10, 16),
wherein a portion of the light shielding unit other than the second linear polarization plate is a support member for holding the second linear polarization plate (i.e. as eyeglasses frame side(s) 15 with portion for holding the lateral polarizing shade element 160S, paragraphs [89-97, 20, 22-23, 55-60], as depicted in Figs. 10,1B, with side portion of 15 is holding polarizing shade element 160S).
But Ronen does not explicitly disclose in the same example that the support member (frame side 15) is configured by a member that shields visible light (i.e. as the NED glasses have side 15 parts and materials, but it is unclear if they shield visible light, however the sides may have light blocking baffle(s) 130L-130R that block incident radiation from a range of glancing angles from reaching eye of the observer, see paragraphs [5-11, 67-75,112]).
However, as noted Ronen teaches in embodiment that the support member (frame side 15) is configured by a member that shields visible light (i.e. as frame sides may have light blocking baffle(s) 130L-130R mechanically supported by attachment to the support arrangement and projecting towards observer’s eye direction, so they block incident radiation from a range of glancing angles from reaching eye of the observer, while having minimal impact on the peripheral field of view of the observer, leaving the observer with an impression of an unrestricted field of view, see paragraphs [5-11, 67-75,112]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the near-eye display device polarization filtering embodiment with its’ display and support frame and sides to include eye cover(s) member that shields visible light according to teachings of Ronen embodiment using side baffle(s) that block incident radiation from a range of glancing angles from reaching eye of the observer, in order to block incident radiation from a range of glancing angles from reaching eye of the observer, while having minimal impact on the peripheral field of view of the observer, leaving the observer with an impression of an unrestricted field of view, see paragraphs [5-11, 67-69,73,112]).
But Ronen still does not disclose the details that the support member (frame side 15 as modified with baffles) is disposed to cover or enclose an entire circumference or perimeter of the second linear polarization plate (i.e. as eyeglasses frame sides 15 with lateral shade are show to hold the lateral polarizing shade element 160S, and baffle(s) 130 are implemented with mechanical support attachment to the frame side(s), paragraphs [67-69,73, 89-97, 20, 22-23, 55-60], as depicted in Figs. 8,10, 16, 1B).
However, Chao teaches in the same field of invention of eyeglasses frames with resilient structures and shields (see Figs. 1-4,11-12, Abstract, paragraphs [3,8-17, 41-51,57-65, 84-86]) and further teaches that the support member (frame side with sides, and shield(s) in 100, 1100,1200, e.g. side 120(140)(1104)(1204) in 112 and equivalents, see paragraphs [41-51,57-65, 84-86], Figs. 1-2,11-12) is disposed to cover or enclose an entire circumference or perimeter of the window plate (i.e. as side support shield 112 covers and encloses entire circumference or perimeter of the partially transparent side portion window tinted filter 144, 1110,1205, held in the side shield as it is desirable to better facilitate transmission of light through at least a portion of the side shield, and facilitate peripheral vision of the user, paragraphs [41-51,57-65, 84-86], Figs. 1-2, 11-12).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the near-eye display device with its’ display and support frame and sides baffle(s) and its’ side polarizer/filter of Ronen according to design arrangement where the support frame side is disposed to cover and encloses entire circumference or perimeter of the (partially) transparent side portions according to teachings of Chao, in order to provide that the polarizer filter is held in the side shield and to better facilitate transmission of light through at least a portion of the side shield, and facilitate peripheral vision of the user, paragraphs [41-51,57-65, 84-86]).
Further, Ronen does not explicitly specify that the eyepiece optical system has an eye relief of 18 mm or more (i.e. however, given the size of near-eye display 10,2 and it’s optical system size with projector, waveguide, collimating optics and polarizer 160 which in use is mounted on the head of the observer, given the size of the users head, nose, ears and other facial features, the optical system 10,2 has eye relief distance close to the above range, as depicted in Figs. 1, 10, 16, paragraphs [01-24, 55-60, 64-66, 89-100]).
However, Tohara teaches in the same field of invention of an image display apparatus (see Figs. 1-10, HMD 101, abstract, paragraphs [05-08, 26-32,35-39, 79-83]) and further teaches that optical system has an eye relief of 18 mm or more (i.e. as HMD display has eye relief E1 of 18 mm, allowing an observer wearing glasses can wear the HMD 101, and preventing the display lens of the device from becoming large, and thereby preventing the size of the 101 from becoming large, i.e. undesirably increasing the size of the HMD 101, see paragraphs [26-32,35-39, 79-83]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt and modify the near-eye display of Ronen by specifying the eye relief to 18 mm according to teachings of Tohara in order to prevent the display lens of the device from becoming large, and thereby preventing the size of the HMD device from becoming large and undesirably increasing the size of the HMD, while still providing ghost and birefringence reduction and improving viewing angle characteristics at a marginal view angle of an ocular optical system (see Tohara, paragraphs [5-7, 26-32,35-39, 79-83]).
Regarding claims 10,11 and 12, the Ronen-Chao-Tohara combination teaches the invention as set forth above, and Ronen teaches (see Figs. 1-16) the optical apparatus (near-eye displays with scenery reflection suppression, e.g. paragraphs [01-24, 55-60, 64-66, 89-100) but is silent that it includes a total of two lenses, consisting of a positive lens and a negative, meniscus lens disposed on a side of the image display element of the positive lens, with a convex surface facing the image display and being aspherical lens having aspherical surfaces on both sides.
However, Tohara teaches in the same field of invention of an image display apparatus (see Figs. 1-10, HMD 101, abstract, paragraphs [05-08, 26-32,35-39, 79-83]) and further teaches that HMD optical apparatus includes a total of two lenses, consisting of a positive lens and a negative, meniscus lens disposed on a side of the image display element of the positive lens with a convex surface facing the image display and being aspherical lens having aspherical surfaces on both sides (i.e. as HMD 101 has left- eye optical system OL1 with negative meniscus first lens 107/105 with convex surface on and next to the display 109 and being aspherical lens having aspherical surfaces on both sides see details in Figs. 1-2, and having positive second lens 106/104, which allow that lights from the display element 108 (or 109) is introduced to the exit pupil EL1 (or ER1) to project magnified virtual images of the display images onto the observer's eye 102 (or eye 103), and preventing display lens of the device from becoming large, and thus preventing the size of the HMD 101 from becoming large, i.e. undesirably increasing the size of the HMD 101, while still providing ghost and birefringence reduction and improving viewing angle characteristics at a marginal view angle of an ocular optical system (see Tohara, paragraphs [5-7, 26-32,35-39, 79-83]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt and modify the near-eye display of Ronen by specifying that the optical apparatus includes a total of two lenses, consisting of a positive lens and a negative meniscus lens with convex surface on display side and disposed on a side of the image display element of the positive lens according to teachings of Tohara in order to allow the lights from the display elements are introduced to the exit pupils to project magnified virtual images of the display images onto the observer's left and right eyes, and prevent the display lens of the device from becoming large, and thus preventing the size of the HMD device from becoming large, i.e. from undesirably increasing the size of the HMD, while still providing ghost and birefringence reduction and improving viewing angle characteristics at a marginal view angle of an ocular optical system (see Tohara, paragraphs [5-7, 26-32,35-39, 79-83]).
Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ronen et al. (hereafter Ronen, of record), US 20210271006 A1 in view of Chao et al. (hereafter Chao) US 20040263774 A1, view of Tohara US 20210239985 A1, and further in view of Peng et al. (hereafter Peng, of record) US 20210173134 A1.
Regarding claim 5, the Ronen-Chao-Tohara combination teaches the invention as set forth above, and Ronen teaches (see Figs. 1-16) that the eyepiece optical system (i.e. optical system of near-eye display with projector, waveguide, optics, collimation optics, PBS cubes, out-coupling arrangements, paragraphs [01-24, 55-60, 64-66, 89-100]), includes, in order from a side of the image display element (side of projector 2, Figs. 1, 10, 16) to a side of the first linear polarization plate (e.g. polarizer 160I, Figs. 10), a third linear polarization plate (i.e. as plate of one or more PBS cube(s) in projector 2, paragraphs [55-56]), a semi-transmissive and reflective element (i.e. partially-reflective surfaces, facets 12A paragraphs [55-61]), but is silent that the optical system includes also a first retardation plate, a first lens, and a semi-transmissive and reflective element, a second lens, and a second retardation plate (i.e. as optical system of near eye display 10,20 is not specified as polarization folding display, but does have polarized source and polarize near the eye of observer, see paragraphs [01-24, 55-60, 64-66, 89-97], Figs. 1, 10, 16).
However, Peng teaches in the same field of invention of a lens assembly having a circular reflective polarizer in near-eye displays (NEDs) (see e.g. Figs. 1, 4-10, abstract, paragraphs [02-06, 42-49, 64-73]) and further teaches that the NED adopts pancake lens fold optical system that includes also a first retardation plate, a first lens, and a semi-transmissive and reflective element, a second lens, and a second retardation plate (i.e. as NED optical system 10 with electronic display 150 may be a linearly polarized light, that passes through QWP 102, first lens 105, half mirror 104, second lens 110, second QWP/reflective 108/125, see paragraphs [42-49, 64-73], Fig. 1, thus achieving compact size and light weight of NED while maintaining satisfactory optical characteristics, with adopting fold pancake lens in the lens system to fold the optical path, providing optical power to the image light, and thereby reducing the back focal distance in the NED, abstract, paragraphs [03-05, 40]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the optical system of NED of Ronan to include fold path optical system, also applicable to NED, with a first retardation plate, a first lens, and a semi-transmissive and reflective element, a second lens, and a second retardation plate according to teachings of Peng in order to achieve compact size and light weight optical system for NED while maintaining satisfactory optical characteristics, by adopting fold pancake lens in the optical lens system to fold the optical path, providing optical power to the image light, and reducing the back focal distance in the NED,(see Peng, abstract, paragraphs [03-05, 40]).
Regarding claim 9, the Ronen-Chao-Tohara-Peng combination teaches the invention as set forth above, and Ronen teaches (see Figs. 1-16) that the second lens has positive refractive power (i.e. as lens 110 per combination is positive, see e.g. Peng, paragraphs [42-49, 64-73], Fig. 1), but doesn’t specify that the first lens has negative refractive power. However, Tohara teaches in the same field of invention of an image display apparatus (see Figs. 1-10, HMD 101, abstract, paragraphs [05-08, 26-32,35-39, 79-83]) and further teaches that that the first lens has negative refractive power (i.e. as HMD 101 has left- right- eye optical system OL1/OR1 with negative meniscus first lens 107/105, while also having positive second lens 106/104, allowing that lights from the display elements 108 and 109 are introduced to the exit pupils ER1 and EL1 to project magnified virtual images of the display images onto the observer's right eye 102 and left eye 103, and preventing display lens of the device from becoming large, and thus preventing the size of the HMD 101 from becoming large, i.e. undesirably increasing the size of the HMD 101, while still providing ghost and birefringence reduction and improving viewing angle characteristics at a marginal view angle of an ocular optical system (see Tohara, paragraphs [5-7, 26-32,35-39, 79-83]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt and modify the near-eye display of Ronen by specifying that the first lens is negative meniscus lens according to teachings of Tohara in order to allow the lights from the display elements are introduced to the exit pupils to project magnified virtual images of the display images onto the observer's left and right eyes, and prevent the display lens of the device from becoming large, and thus preventing the size of the HMD device from becoming large, i.e. from undesirably increasing the size of the HMD, while still providing ghost and birefringence reduction and improving viewing angle characteristics at a marginal view angle of an ocular optical system (see Tohara, paragraphs [5-7, 26-32,35-39, 79-83]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed in the Remarks dated 02/17/2025 with respect to claim(s) 1 and 8 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.
Conclusion
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 MARIN PICHLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4015. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am -5:00pm.
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, Thomas K Pham can be reached on (571)272-3689. 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.
/MARIN PICHLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872