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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 10/8/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that no burden exists. This is not found persuasive because the device and method for making are distinct and have separate status in the art as detailed in the 8/8/2025 Requirement for Restriction, requiring disparate queries, classifications, and/or research portals must be used to narrow the wide extent of the various distinct prior arts in order to appropriately examine each of the inventions.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Disposition of the Claims
Claims 1-19 are pending. Claims 10-19 were withdrawn from consideration.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1-4, 8, and 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fermigier (US 20100007846 A1) in view of Steiner (US 20200379226 A1, of record).
Regarding claim 1, Fermigier teaches an optical system (Figs. 2a, 2b), comprising:
a first lens (10) including a first optically transparent member having a first surface (S1) and a second surface (S2), and wherein the first surface (S1) of the first lens includes a first region (the center rounded portion) and a second region (the concentric Fresnel portion), the first region of the first surface is smooth and at a center of the first surface (Figs. 2a, 2b), the second region of the first surface includes a Fresnel structure and surrounds the first region (Figs. 2a, 2b).
Fermigier does not explicitly show a reflective polarizer on the first surface and configured to pass through light having a first polarization state and reflect light having a second polarization state that is orthogonal to the first polarization state, the reflective polarizer includes a first region and a second region, the first region of the reflective polarizer matches a profile of the first region of the first surface of the first lens, and the second region of the reflective polarizer matches a profile of the second region of the first surface of the first lens.
Steiner explicitly shows an analogous optical system having a lens with a reflective polarization coating that “conforms to a first major surface of the one or more optical lenses” that reflects light of one first polarization and transmits light of the second orthogonal polarization (¶57)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have followed the teachings of Steiner and conformed such a coating on the Fresnel lens of Fermigier thus resulting in a reflective polarizer on the first surface and configured to pass through light having a first polarization state and reflect light having a second polarization state that is orthogonal to the first polarization state, the reflective polarizer includes a first region and a second region, the first region of the reflective polarizer matches a profile of the first region of the first surface of the first lens, and the second region of the reflective polarizer matches a profile of the second region of the first surface of the first lens. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so for the purpose of employing such a lens in a polarization sensitive display system (e.g. a liquid crystal type display), or for the purpose of reducing glare when employed in the configurations known to Fermigier (the sunglasses and eyewear of Figs. 2a, 2b respectively).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Fermigier teaches the optical system according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the first surface includes a third region (proximate to S0, which in Fig. 2a does not exhibit Fresnel structure and is smooth), the third region of the first surface is smooth (id.) and surrounds the second region of the first surface (Fig. 2a, region proximate to S0 is opposite the Fresnel zone 20, concentric to center), and the reflective polarizer includes a third region that matches a profile of the third region of the first surface (for the same reasons as in the combination above, wherein the polarization coating of Steiner conforms to the surface and thus matches a profile of the third surface).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Fermigier teaches the optical system according to claim 1, but does not explicitly show further comprising: the first surface and the second surface are aspheric.
Steiner explicitly shows applying the polarization coating to aspheric lens surfaces (¶107).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have followed the teachings of Steiner and utilized aspheric curvature in the lens of Fermigier for the purpose of correcting optical aberration.
Regarding claim 4, the modified Fermigier teaches the optical system according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the first polarization state is a first linear polarization state, and the second polarization state is a second linear polarization state (Steiner, ¶112).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Fermigier teaches the optical system according to claim 1, but does not explicitly show wherein a thickness of the reflective polarizer is from 50 to 100 microns.
However, 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). The general conditions of the optical system have been detailed above. Benefit of optimizing the thickness of the polarizer includes sufficient polarization without degradation of transmission and minimizing the amount of material used, thus the cost.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimizied the thickness of the polarizer of the modified Fermigier and thereby obtained the claimed range.
Regarding claim 9, the modified Fermigier teaches the optical system according to claim 8, and explicitly shows wherein the Fresnel structure includes a plurality of grooves, and each depth of the plurality of grooves is less than 100 microns (¶29, “the Fresnel zones 2 are dimensioned so that … the magnitudes of the jumps in height 3 may be between 5 [microns] and 250 [microns]”). The claimed range lying within the range disclosed by the prior art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to straightforwardly experiment with the Fresnel groove depths of Fermigier and thus obtain the claimed range.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Fermigier as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gross (Handbook of Optical Systems1).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Fermigier teaches the optical system according to claim 1, comprising: a second lens including a second optically transparent member having a third surface and a fourth surface, the second lens being a plano-spheric lens.
Official Notice is taken that planospheric lenses are exceptionally well known from, e.g. Galileo. Gross specifically addresses the feasibility of adding lenses when optimizing an optical system (p. 372-376, “Optimization Process: Addition and Removal of a Lens”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a planospheric lens to an optical system for the purpose of adjusting the refractive power and thus focus, thereby improving the quality of the image.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Fermigier as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fermigier ‘717 (US 20100259717 A1, of record).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Fermigier teaches the optical system according to claim 1, but does not explicitly show wherein the first optically transparent member is made of poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA).
Fermigier ‘717 identifies PMMA as a suitable material for Fresnel lenses (¶38). it has been held that selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2144.07.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the suitable material known to Fermigier from Fermigier ‘717 and thus obtained a suitable Fresnel lens.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is 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.
Regarding claim 6, the modified Fermigier teaches the optical system according to claim 5, comprising: a beam splitter configured to partially transmit and partially reflect light beams from a display device, and a quarter waveplate (QWP) that is positioned between the beam splitter and the reflective polarizer, wherein a pixel array in the display device is configured to generate light beams, the beam splitter is disposed on the third surface or the fourth surface of the second lens, and the second lens is positioned between the display device and the first lens.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLLIN X BEATTY whose telephone number is (571)270-1255. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 10am - 6pm.
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 Pham can be reached on 5712723689. 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.
/COLLIN X BEATTY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
1 Herbert Gross. Handbook of Optical Systems Volume 3: Aberration Theory and Correction of Optical Systems. p. 372-376. Copyright © 2007 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim ISBN: 978-3-527-40379-0