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 .
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the present application.
Claims 1, 8, and 20 are currently amended, and claims 2-7 and 9-19 are original.
Response to Amendment
The amendment dated 20 November 2025 has been entered into the record.
Response to Arguments
Regarding independent claims 1 and 20, the applicant argues only that prior art reference of record Rao fails to disclose the newly added claim limitation that each of the at least one multi-channel lenses includes a plurality of subsidiary lenses that correspond to the multiple channels. No evidence is provided by the applicant to support this conclusion. As discussed in the new rejections set forth below, prior art reference Rao does in fact disclose the newly added claim limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rao (US 2022/0342121), of record.
Re: claim 1, Rao discloses a display panel 105 which displays an image on an image display surface thereof (para. 31 & Fig. 1, where the right, vertically extending side is the display surface); at least one lens frame 130, 200, 300 disposed on the image display surface (disposed disclosed in Fig. 1; see also Figs. 2A, 2C, 3; Fig. 37 discloses two lens frames), wherein the at least one lens frame refracts image display lights 145 emitted from the image display surface (Figs. 1, 2A, 2C, 3; paras. 36 & 45 disclose a Fresnel lens, a known refracting element); and at least one multi-channel lens 140 which forms exit paths of the image display lights refracted by the at least one lens frame 130, 200, 300 for each of multiple channels (capability to form exit paths disclosed in at least Fig. 1) thereof; wherein each of the at least one multi-channel lens 140 includes a plurality of subsidiary lens corresponding to the multiple channels, respectively (Fig. 1, where a subsidiary lens is comprised of any portion of lens 140 that is less than the whole; e.g., if lens 140 were divided into evenly sized quarters, each quarter would comprise a subsidiary lens).
Re: claim 2, Rao discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Rao further discloses that the at least one lens frame 130, 200, 300 comprises first and second lens frames disposed in line with positions of a user's left and right eyes, respectively (Figs. 1, 2A, 2B, 37; para. 157), and wherein the first and second lens frames refract the image display lights output from the image display surface of the display panel toward a front side at a predetermined angle in an outward direction or toward an outer periphery to output the image display lights to rear surfaces of the at least one multi-channel lenses (capability disclosed in at least Figs. 1, 2A, 2C, where an outward direction is the light exit direction. Also, it has been held that the mere duplication of part has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced [MPEP § 2164.08]).
Re: claim 3, Rao discloses the limitations of claim 2, and Rao further discloses that the at least one multi-channel lens 140 comprises first and second multi-channel lenses disposed in line with the first and second lens frames, respectively (Figs. 1, 2A, 2C, 3, 37; para. 157 discloses displays for the left and right eye), and wherein the first and second multi-channel lenses pass the image display lights refracted by the first and second lens frames through different paths for the multiple channels, to transmit the image display lights to the user's left and right eyes through channels of the different paths (capability disclosed in at least Figs. 1, 2A, 2C, 37).
Re: claim 4, Rao discloses the limitations of claim 3, and Rao further discloses that each of the first and second lens frames 130, 200, 300 comprises a lens sheet having an area and a shape corresponding to the image display surface of the display panel (Figs. 1, 37); and a plurality of optical lenses 220, 230, 320, 322, 370, 372 disposed on a front surface of the lens sheet (Figs. 1, 2A, 2C, 3), wherein the plurality of optical lenses refracts the image display lights passed through the lens sheet in an outward direction or toward an outer periphery of the lens sheet to output the image display lights (capability disclosed in at least Figs. 1, 2A, 2C, where an outward direction is the light exit direction).
Re: claim 5, Rao discloses the limitations of claim 4, and Rao further discloses that the plurality of optical lenses 220, 230, 320, 322, 370, 372 is formed in a ring type having different circumferences from each other, and is arranged in a form of a plurality of concentric circles on the front surface of the lens sheet to cover the front surface of the lens sheet (Fig. 5A discloses rings, different circumferences, and concentric circles).
Re: claim 6, Rao discloses the limitations of claim 4, and Rao further discloses one or more structural characteristics of length, area and width of adjacent optical lenses of the plurality of optical lenses are different from each other (Figs. 2A, 2C).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao.
Re: claim 20, Rao discloses a main frame mounted on a user's body (Fig. 38; para. 171 discloses a band shaped to fit around a user’s head) wherein the display device 100 (Fig. 1) displays an image; and a cover frame 3802 covering the display device (Fig. 38), wherein the display device comprises: a display panel 105 which displays an image on an image display surface thereof (para. 31 & Fig. 1, where the right, vertically extending side is the display surface); at least one lens frame 130, 200, 300 disposed on the image display surface (disposed disclosed in Fig. 1; see also Figs. 2A, 2C, 3; Fig. 37 discloses two lens frames), wherein the at least one lens frame refracts image display lights 145 emitted from the image display surface (Figs. 1, 2A, 2C, 3; paras. 36 & 45 disclose a Fresnel lens, a known refracting element); and at least one multi-channel lens 140 which forms exit paths of the image display lights refracted by the at least one lens frame 130, 200, 300 for each of multiple channels thereof, (capability to form exit paths disclosed in at least Fig. 1); wherein each of the at least one multi-channel lens includes a plurality of subsidiary lens corresponding to the multiple channels, respectively (Fig. 1, where a subsidiary lens is comprised of any portion of lens 140 that is less than the whole; e.g., if lens 140 were divided into evenly sized quarters, each quarter would comprise a subsidiary lens).
While Rao does not explicitly illustrate that a display device is mounted on the main frame, at least Figures 1 and 38 and paragraphs 171 and 172 of Rao would have suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the art at a time prior to the effective date that the displays disclosed in Figure 1 were intended to be used in conjunction with the VR device disclosed in Figure 38 to create a mechanism for a user to receive visual feedback (see para. 172 of Rao). Hence the claim limitation is the obvious combination of prior art elements according to known methods that yield predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 and 9-19 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.
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 ANGELA MEDICH whose telephone number is (313)446-4819. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 AM - 7:00 PM ET.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at 571-272-9791. 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.
/ANGELA M. MEDICH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871