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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/23/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The examiner understands the definition of the spatial average fraction, as has been defined in the arguments (and specification) and has reiterated it in the 112(b) rejection below. While the 112(a) rejection has been withdrawn, the 112(b) rejection is maintained for ambiguity. Please see the 112(b) rejection below for further clarity.
Regarding the applicant’s arguments pertaining to the prior art rejection, the applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the amendments to the claims and the new grounds of rejection below.
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 1-20 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.
Regarding Claims 1-2, 14-16, 20, the limitation “transmit a spatial average fraction of the light” is ambiguous as to the metes and bounds of the claims. The applicant has defined the spatial average of fraction to be:
t
h
e
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
o
f
l
i
g
h
t
t
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
e
d
(
o
r
r
e
f
l
e
c
t
e
d
)
b
y
t
h
e
b
e
a
m
s
p
l
i
t
t
e
r
t
h
e
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
o
f
l
i
g
h
t
e
m
i
t
t
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
e
l
e
c
t
r
o
n
i
c
d
i
s
p
l
a
y
It is unclear how the beam splitter can transmit or reflect a spatial average fraction, if the spatial average fraction cannot be calculated without measuring how much light is transmitted/reflected through the beam splitter. For examination purposes, the limitation is interpreted to mean “a portion of light”.
Claims 3-13, 17-19 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on the rejected claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 5-9, 14-16, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al (US Publication No.: US 2024/0171846 A1 of record, “Zhu”) in view of Masarik et al (US Publication No.: US 2024/0184092 A1, “Masarik”).
Regarding Claim 1, Zhu discloses a head-mounted display (Figures 1-3) comprising:
An electronic display configured to emit light (Figure 3, electronic display 23); and
A pancake lens optically coupled to the electronic display (Figure 3, pancake lens 22; Paragraph 0075),
The pancake lens comprising a beam splitter (Figure 3, beam splitter 224; Paragraph 0075) configured to:
Transmit a spatial average fraction of the light (Paragraph 0078 discloses a transmittance of 95%); and
Reflect an additional spatial average fraction of the light that is less than the spatial average fraction of the light (Paragraph 0078 discloses a less than 1% reflection).
Zhu fails to disclose that the light is visible light.
However, Masarik discloses a similar device where the light is visible light (Masarik, Paragraph 0275).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device as disclosed by Zhu to have the light be visible light as disclosed by Masarik. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of optimizing luminous transmittance (Masarik, Paragraph 0275).
Regarding Claim 2, Zhu in view of Masarik discloses the head-mounted display of claim 1, wherein the spatial average fraction of the visible light is greater than 70 perfect of the visible light emitted by the electronic display (Paragraph 0078 discloses 95%).
Zhu fails to disclose that the light is visible light.
However, Masarik discloses a similar device where the light is visible light (Masarik, Paragraph 0275 discloses an 80% transmittance of visible light).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device as disclosed by Zhu to have the light be visible light as disclosed by Masarik. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of optimizing luminous transmittance (Masarik, Paragraph 0275).
Regarding Claim 5, Zhu in view of Masarik discloses the head-mounted display of claim 1, wherein: the visible light emitted by the electronic display is linearly polarized (Paragraph 0086); and the pancake lens comprises: a quarter wave retarder plate that convers the linearly polarized visible light to circularly polarized visible light (Paragraph 0093; Figure 7, quarter wave plate 27); and a reflective polarizer system configured to reflect the circularly polarized visible light (Paragraph 0077; Figure 3, reflective polarizer system 221).
Regarding Claim 6, Zhu in view of Masarik discloses the head-mounted display of claim 5, wherein the reflective polarizer system comprises: an additional quarter wave retarder that converts the circularly polarized visible light to linearly polarized visible light (Figure 3, additional quarter wave plate 222); and a reflective polarizer that reflects the linearly polarized visible light (Paragraph 0077; Figure 3, reflective polarizer 221).
Regarding Claim 7, Zhu in view of Masarik discloses the head-mounted display of claim 6, wherein the reflective polarizer comprises at least one of: a multilayered birefringent polymer reflective polarizer; a cholesteric reflective polarizer; or a wire grid (Paragraph 0075 discloses a multilayered birefringent polymer reflective polarizer; Paragraph 0077).
Regarding Claim 8, Zhu in view of Masarik discloses the head-mounted display of claim 6, wherein the beam splitter is positioned between the electronic display and the quarter wave retarder; and the reflective polarizer is positioned between the quarter wave retarder and the additional quarter wave retarder (Figure 7, beam splitter 224 is positioned between quarter wave plate 222 and display 23, where a portion of the beam splitter 224 may be considered the reflective polarizer which is positioned between quarter wave plates 222 and 27).
Regarding Claim 9, Zhu discloses the head-mounted display of claim 6, wherein: the quarter wave retarder is positioned between the electronic display and the beam splitter; and the additional quarter wave retarder is positioned between the beam splitter and the reflective polarizer (Figure 3, quarter wave retarder 27 is disposed between the electronic display 23 and the beam splitter 224 and the additional quarter wave retarder 222 is disposed between the reflective polarizer 221 and the beam splitter 224).
Regarding Claim 14, Zhu in view of Masarik discloses the head-mounted display of claim 1, wherein the spatial average fraction of the visible light comprises an average of values measured over a certain region of the beam splitter (Paragraph 0078 discloses an average light transmittance of 95%).
Regarding Claim 15, Zhu discloses an artificial-reality system (Paragraph 0052; Figures 1-3) comprising:
An electronic display (Figure 3, electronic display 23);
At least one processing device communicatively coupled to the electronic display and configured to direct the electronic display to emit light (Figure 3, processing device 25); and
A pancake lens optically coupled to the electronic display (Figure 3, pancake lens 22),
The pancake lens comprising a beam splitter (Figure 3, beam splitter 224) configured to:
Transmit a spatial average fraction of the light (Paragraph 0078 discloses a transmittance of 95%); and
Reflect an additional spatial average fraction of the light that is less than the spatial average fraction of the light (Paragraph 0078 discloses a less than 1% reflection).
Zhu fails to disclose that the light is visible light.
However, Masarik discloses a similar device where the light is visible light (Masarik, Paragraph 0275).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device as disclosed by Zhu to have the light be visible light as disclosed by Masarik. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of optimizing luminous transmittance (Masarik, Paragraph 0275).
Regarding Claim 16, Zhu in view of Masarik discloses the artificial-reality system of claim 15, wherein the spatial average fraction of the visible light is greater than 70 perfect of the visible light emitted by the electronic display (Paragraph 0078 discloses 95%).
Zhu fails to disclose that the light is visible light.
However, Masarik discloses a similar device where the light is visible light (Masarik, Paragraph 0275 discloses an 80% transmittance of visible light).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device as disclosed by Zhu to have the light be visible light as disclosed by Masarik. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of optimizing luminous transmittance (Masarik, Paragraph 0275).
Regarding Claim 19, Zhu in view of Masarik discloses the artificial-reality system of claim 17, wherein: the visible light emitted by the electronic display is linearly polarized (Paragraph 0086); and the pancake lens comprises: a quarter wave retarder plate that convers the linearly polarized visible light to circularly polarized visible light (Paragraph 0093; Figure 7, quarter wave plate 27); and a reflective polarizer system configured to reflect the circularly polarized visible light (Paragraph 0077; Figure 3, reflective polarizer system 221).
Regarding Claim 20, Zhu discloses a method comprising:
Installing an electronic display into a head-mounted system (Figures 1-3, electronic device 23);
Assembling a pancake lens that comprises a beam splitter (Figure 3, pancake lens 22, beam splitter 224); and
Optically coupling the pancake lens to the electronic display in the head-mounted system such that the beam splitter is configured to: transmit a spatial average fraction of light emitted by the electronic display (Paragraph 0078 discloses a transmittance of 95%); and reflect an additional spatial average fraction of the light that is less than the spatial average fraction of the light (Paragraph 0078 discloses a less than 1% reflection).
Zhu fails to disclose that the light is visible light.
However, Masarik discloses a similar device where the light is visible light (Masarik, Paragraph 0275).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device as disclosed by Zhu to have the light be visible light as disclosed by Masarik. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of optimizing luminous transmittance (Masarik, Paragraph 0275).
Claims 3-4 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Masarik in further view of Yu et al (US Publication No.: US 2020/0192088 A1 of record, “Yu”).
Regarding Claim 3, Zhu in view of Masarik discloses the head-mounted display of claim 1.
Zhu fails to disclose that the beam splitter comprises a center region and a perimeter region; and the beam splitter exhibit a gradation of transmissibility from the center region to the perimeter region.
However, Yu discloses a similar display where the beam splitter comprises a center region and a perimeter region; and the beam splitter exhibit a gradation of transmissibility from the center region to the perimeter region (Yu, Paragraph 0077).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the beam splitter as disclosed by Zhu to include a gradation as disclosed by Yu. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of controlling light output (Yu, Paragraph 0077).
Regarding Claim 4, Zhu in view of Masarik and Yu discloses the head-mounted display of claim 3.
Zhu fails to disclose that the gradation of transmissibility comprises transmissibility in the center region that is at least 5 percent higher than transmissibility in the perimeter region.
Yu also fails to explicitly disclose that the gradation of transmissibility comprises transmissibility in the center region that is at least 5 percent higher than transmissibility in the perimeter region. However, Yu discloses a general environment of having a gradient beam splitter to control light transmissibility (Yu, Paragraph 0077). When a limitation of a claim is a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which when modified achieves a recognized result, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges for the variable by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05). In the instant claim recitation, the limitation regarding the transmission between the center and perimeter region is the result-effective variable, and when this transmission is optimized to the appropriate value within the specified parameters of a given display, the recognized results of controlled light output are realized. While Yu does not directly disclose that the gradation of transmissibility comprises transmissibility in the center region that is at least 5 percent higher than transmissibility in the perimeter region, Yu does disclose the general conditions recited in the instant claim, as noted above. In light of the disclosure of Yu, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to discover the limitation by routine experimentation that the gradation of transmissibility comprises transmissibility in the center region that is at least 5 percent higher than transmissibility in the perimeter region for the purpose of optimizing light output.
Regarding Claim 17, Zhu in view of Masarik discloses the artificial-reality system of claim 15.
Zhu fails to disclose that the beam splitter comprises a center region and a perimeter region; and the beam splitter exhibit a gradation of transmissibility from the center region to the perimeter region.
However, Yu discloses a similar display where the beam splitter comprises a center region and a perimeter region; and the beam splitter exhibit a gradation of transmissibility from the center region to the perimeter region (Yu, Paragraph 0077).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the beam splitter as disclosed by Zhu to include a gradation as disclosed by Yu. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of controlling light output (Yu, Paragraph 0077).
Regarding Claim 18, Zhu in view of Masarik and Yu discloses the artificial-reality system of claim 17.
Zhu fails to disclose that the gradation of transmissibility comprises transmissibility in the center region that is at least 5 percent higher than transmissibility in the perimeter region.
Yu also fails to explicitly disclose that the gradation of transmissibility comprises transmissibility in the center region that is at least 5 percent higher than transmissibility in the perimeter region. However, Yu discloses a general environment of having a gradient beam splitter to control light transmissibility (Yu, Paragraph 0077). When a limitation of a claim is a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which when modified achieves a recognized result, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges for the variable by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05). In the instant claim recitation, the limitation regarding the transmission between the center and perimeter region is the result-effective variable, and when this transmission is optimized to the appropriate value within the specified parameters of a given display, the recognized results of controlled light output are realized. While Yu does not directly disclose that the gradation of transmissibility comprises transmissibility in the center region that is at least 5 percent higher than transmissibility in the perimeter region, Yu does disclose the general conditions recited in the instant claim, as noted above. In light of the disclosure of Yu, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to discover the limitation by routine experimentation that the gradation of transmissibility comprises transmissibility in the center region that is at least 5 percent higher than transmissibility in the perimeter region for the purpose of optimizing light output.
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Masarik in further view of Ricks et al (US Publication No.: US 2019/0250400 A1 of record, “Ricks”).
Regarding Claim 10, Zhu in view of Masarik discloses the head-mounted display of claim 1.
Zhu fails to disclose that the beam splitter comprises a thin optical coating disposed on a lens.
However, Ricks discloses a similar display where the beam splitter comprises a thin optical coating disposed on a lens (Ricks, Paragraph 0046).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the beam splitter as disclosed by Zhu to include a coating as disclosed by Ricks. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of optimizing light transmission (Ricks, Paragraph 0046).
Regarding Claim 11, Zhu in view of Masarik and Ricks discloses the head-mounted display of claim 10.
Zhu fails to disclose that the thin optical coating comprises at least one of: an aluminum coating; a silver coating; a gold coating; or a copper coating.
However, Ricks discloses a similar display where the thin optical coating comprises at least one of: an aluminum coating; a silver coating; a gold coating; or a copper coating (Ricks, Paragraph 0046).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the beam splitter as disclosed by Zhu to include a coating as disclosed by Ricks. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of optimizing light transmission (Ricks, Paragraph 0046).
Regarding Claim 12, Zhu in view of Masarik and Ricks discloses the head-mounted display of claim 10.
Zhu fails to disclose that the thin optical coating comprises at least one dielectric layer.
However, Ricks discloses a similar display where the thin optical coating comprises at least one dielectric layer (Ricks, Paragraph 0046).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the beam splitter as disclosed by Zhu to include a coating as disclosed by Ricks. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of optimizing light transmission (Ricks, Paragraph 0046).
Regarding Claim 13, Zhu in view of Masarik and Ricks discloses the head-mounted display of claim 10.
Zhu fails to disclose that the thin optical coating comprises one or more layers of metal and dielectric material.
However, Ricks discloses a similar display where the thin optical coating comprises one or more layers of metal and dielectric material (Ricks, Paragraph 0046).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the beam splitter as disclosed by Zhu to include a coating as disclosed by Ricks. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of optimizing light transmission (Ricks, Paragraph 0046).
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 MARIAM QURESHI whose telephone number is (571)272-4434. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Michael Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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.
/MARIAM QURESHI/Examiner, Art Unit 2871