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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9-25-25 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 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 of this title, 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spitzer et al. (US201600018639, referred to as ‘639) in view of Spitzer et al. (US 20130033756, referred to as ‘756) and in further view of (US6724354, referred to as ‘354).
Re claim 1, ‘639 teaches for example in fig. 1a and 3, an optical system for a virtual image display device, the optical system comprising: a light guide (102) configured to guide image light (para. 0029, 0038) emitted from an image display element (107) that displays an image (para. 0029, 0038), to proceed in the light guide (para. 0029, 0038), the light guide including: a partial reflector (112, 302; para. 0019, 0029, 0038) in the light guide (fig. 1a, 3); a first portion (104) on one side of the partial reflector (fig. 1a, 3); and a second portion (106) on another side of the partial reflector (fig. 1a, 3), the partial reflector being to: transmit the image light incident from the first portion (para. 0029, 0038); and reflect the image light incident from the second portion to guide the image light to exit the light guide (para. 0029, 0038); a reflector (114) to reflect the image light transmitted through the partial reflector and the second portion back to the partial reflector (para. 0029, 0038); and an intermediate image forming portion (304; para. 0037-0038).
But, ‘639 fails to explicitly teach the reflector being independent from the light guide and separated from the light guide by an air gap teach; and forming an intermediate image with the image light in the light guide.
However, within the same field of endeavor, ‘756 teaches for example in fig. 2 and 3a, the reflector (225) being independent from the light guide and separated from the light guide by an air gap teach (para. 0030). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to separate components, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the teachings of ‘639 with ‘756 in order to achieve the correct separation distance between end reflector and display, as taught by ‘756 (para. 0030).
But, ‘639 in view of ‘756 fail to explicitly teach forming an intermediate image with the image light in the light guide.
However, within the same field of endeavor, ‘354 teaches for example in fig. 5a, forming an intermediate image with the image light in the light guide (col. 3, ln. 60 to col. 4, ln. 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the teachings of ‘639 in view of ‘756 with ‘354 in order to change the distance of the virtual image, as taught by ‘354 (col. 4, ln. 6-7).
Re claim 2, ‘639 further teaches for example in fig. 1a and 3, the partial reflector includes multiple partial reflectors (302; para. 0019, 0029, 0038).
Re claim 3, supra claim 2. Furthermore, ‘639 of further teaches for example in fig. 1a and 3, multiple partial reflectors are arranged at a prescribed interval along an optical axis of the optical system (fig. 1a, 3).
But, ‘639 in view ‘756 and in further view of ‘354 fail to explicitly teach the prescribed interval satisfies a conditional expression: 0.5 mm<d<3.0 mm where d is the prescribed interval.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to vary the distance, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the teachings of ‘639 in view ‘756 and in further view of ‘354 in order to function well for various users who may place the eyewear at different distances from the eye, as taught by ‘639 (para. 0021).
Re claim 4, ‘639 further teaches for example in fig. 1a and 3, the reflector includes a reflecting surface having positive power (fig. 1a, 3).
Re claim 5, ‘639 further teaches for example in fig. 1a and 3, the light guide includes: the partial reflector; a first surface (104) at upstream end of the light guide in a direction from the first portion to the second portion (fig. 1a, 3), the first surface defining an incident surface through which the image light emitted from the image display element enters (fig. 1a, 3); and a second surface (106) at downstream end of the light guide in the direction (fig. 1a, 3), the partial reflector is between the first surface and the second surface (fig. 1a, 3).
Re claim 6, ‘639 further teaches for example in fig. 1a and 3, the first surface is an upstream end surface of the first portion in the direction (fig. 1a, 3), the second surface is a downstream end surface of the second portion in the direction (fig. 1a, 3), the intermediate image forming portion (304) is at the first surface of the light guide (fig. 3), and the partial reflector is between the reflector and the intermediate image forming portion (fig. 3).
Re claim 7, ‘639 further teaches for example in fig. 1a and 3, the reflector is an optical component separate from the light guide (fig. 3), and the reflecting surface is to: receive the image light transmitted through the partial reflector and emitted from the light guide (para. 0029, 0038); and reflect the image light struck on the reflector back to the partial reflector (para. 0029, 0038).
Re claim 8, supra claim 4.
But, ‘639 in view ‘756 and in further view of ‘354 fail to explicitly teach the optical system satisfies a conditional expression: −0.8<DA/R<−0.2 where DA is a distance along an optical axis of the optical system between the intermediate image and the reflecting surface of the reflector, and R is a paraxial curvature radius of the reflecting surface.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to vary the distance and curvature, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the teachings of ‘639 in view ‘756 and in further view of ‘354 in order to function well for various users who may place the eyewear at different distances from the eye, as taught by ‘639 (para. 0021).
Re claim 9, supra claim 1. Furthermore, ‘639 of further teaches for example in fig. 1a and 3, the reflector includes a reflecting surface to reflect the image light transmitted through the partial reflector back to the partial reflector (para. 0029, 0038).
But, ‘639 in view ‘756 and in further view of ‘354 fail to explicitly teach the optical system satisfies a conditional expression: 15 mm<TLA<80 mm where TLA is a distance along an optical axis of the optical system between the reflecting surface of the reflector and an incident surface of the light guide through which the image light emitted from the image display element enters.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to vary the distance, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the teachings of ‘639 in view ‘756 and in further view of ‘354 in order to function well for various users who may place the eyewear at different distances from the eye, as taught by ‘639 (para. 0021).
Re claim 13, ‘639 further teaches for example in fig. 1a and 3, the partial reflector has a planar partial reflecting surface (fig. 3).
Re claim 14, supra claim 1. Furthermore, ‘354 of further teaches for example in fig. 5a, magnification of the intermediate image satisfies a conditional expression (col. 3, ln. 60 to col. 4, ln. 10).
But, ‘639 in view ‘756 and in further view of ‘354 fail to explicitly teach conditional expression: 0.5<β<2.0 where β is the magnification of the intermediate image.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to vary the magnification, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the teachings of ‘639 in view ‘756 and in further view of ‘354 in order to function well for various users who may place the eyewear at different distances from the eye, as taught by ‘639 (para. 0021).
Re claim 15, ‘639 further teaches for example in fig. 1a and 3, a propagation optical system (304) configured to guide the image light emitted from the image display element, to enter the light guide (para. 0037-0038).
Re claim 16, supra claim 15.
But, ‘639 in view ‘756 and in further view of ‘354 fail to explicitly teach an aperture stop between the propagation optical system and the light guide on an optical axis of the image light.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include an aperture stop, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering obvious design choices involves only routine skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the teachings of ‘639 in view of ‘354 in order to limit the amount of entering light to control the amount of light that reaches the image plane, as is well known in the art.
Re claim 17, ‘639 further teaches for example in fig. 1a and 3, the propagation optical system defines the intermediate image forming portion (para. 0038).
Re claim 18, ‘639 further teaches for example in fig. 1a and 3, the intermediate image forming portion is an incident surface of the light guide through which the image light emitted from the image display element enters (fig. 3).
Re claim 19, ‘639 further teaches for example in fig. 1a and 3, a virtual image display device comprising: the optical system; and the image display element configured to emit image light to the optical system (para. 0001-0002).
Re claim 20, ‘639 further teaches for example in fig. 1a and 3, a head-mounted display comprising the virtual image display device (fig. 6).
Re claim 21, ‘639 further teaches for example in fig. 4b, the reflector is part of another optical element different from the light guide (para. 0044).
Re claim 22, ‘639 teaches for example in fig. 1a and 3, a first surface having refractive power (para. 0029; wherein the examiner interprets “focusing mirror reflects and/or focuses the polarized light” to teach the claimed limitation), and a second surface which is a reflecting surface (para. 0029; wherein the examiner interprets “focusing mirror reflects and/or focuses the polarized light” to teach the claimed limitation).
Re claim 23, supra claim 22. Furthermore, ‘354 further teaches for example, any number of optical surfaces may be used to magnify the image and to correct aberrations (col. 3, ln., 53-54).
But, ‘639 in view ‘756 and in further view of ‘354 fail to explicitly teach aberration is corrected by the first surface and the second surface of the another optical element.
However, due to the nature of optics, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as the number of optical surfaces, the placement of apertures, the surface types of the optical surfaces, the refractive powers of the optical surfaces, the surface parameters of the lens surfaces, the spacings between the optical surfaces, the center thicknesses of the optical surfaces, the index of refraction of the lenses, the lens surface radii, the material of construction of the optical surfaces, and other shape concerns in order to make a lens system meet its particular utility. This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are well known optics equations at the time the invention was filed (unless the particular range of values meets secondary, specific considerations). Further the court has determined that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed modify the optical surfaces of ‘639 in view ‘756 and in further view of ‘354, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Furthermore, this would provide the predictable result of increasing optical performance, reducing size, and/or limiting optical variations and aberrations, as taught by ‘354 (col. 3, ln., 53-54).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-9 and 13-23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Liu et al. (US20140347572).
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 JOSEPH P MARTINEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-2335. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am to 7pm PACIFIC.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571) 272-2713. 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.
/Joseph P Martinez/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 9-29-25