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.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 2, 4-15, 17-22 are pending. Claims 3 and 16 were canceled by the 11/6/2025 Response.
Response to Arguments
Regarding whether the 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(a) applies to Rao, the inventive entities of the instant application and that of Rao differ (that is, all of the inventors of Rao are not also inventors of the instant application). At present, there is no evidence of record indicating that the subject matter disclosed in Rao was not derived from Rao’s named inventors that are exclusive of the instant application. See MPEP 2155.01. In order to properly invoke the grace period exception, Applicant must file a 37 CFR 1.130(a) affidavit establishing that the subject matter disclosed in Rao was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of the instant application AND provide a reasonable explanation of the additional inventor/author in the reference to overcome the rejection. See In re DeBaun, 687 F.2d 459, 463, 214 USPQ 933, 936 (CCPA 1982).
Applicant’s remaining arguments depend materially from Rao being disqualified, and are thus rendered moot until such affidavit is received and determined effective.
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, 6-8, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao (US 20220035075 A1, of record) in view of Destain (US 20070153402 A1, of record) and Rabner (WO 2023007329 A1, effectively filed 7/25/2021, newly cited).
Regarding claims 1 and 20, Rao teaches a Fresnel lens (¶6, ¶201) comprising: a lens body comprising an organic solid crystal (¶6, ¶71) having mutually-orthogonal refractive indices, nx, ny, nz (¶76-78, ¶209, Fig. 1C; note that ¶71 discloses suitable materials as disclosed by Applicant’s specification, ¶27, e.g. anthracene, grown in single crystal phase per ¶186, and must thus exhibit the same optical properties); and a structured surface comprising a plurality of facets (inherent to Fresnel lenses).
Rao does not explicitly show the lens body having a bi-conic architecture, or wherein the lens body is configured to reduce geometric aberrations arising from birefringence of the organic solid crystal.
Destain explicitly shows provision of a Fresnel lens having hyperbolic facets, i.e. biconic (¶36), and indicates the use of conic terms toward correcting optical aberration (¶31). Rabner also shows an analogous Fresnel lens for directing display light to an eye (Fig. 1) having Fresnel surface zones (132, 134) and a bi-conic central zone (¶108), and contemplates improved sharpness acuity without aberration (¶207, generally, and ¶528-530 contemplates additional blazing on the Fresnel facets for further correction). Both references depict the steps between neighboring facets, which as noted above, is an inherent feature of Fresnel lens surfaces.
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 known geometries from Destain and Rabner to implement the Fresnel lens of Rao and thus obtained a predictable variation in focusing position, render the lens advantageous for coating effects, and correct optical aberrations (Destain, ¶36, and Rabner, ¶207, generally, and ¶528-530 contemplates additional blazing on the Fresnel facets for further correction). Absent any criticality of the claimed structures, it being known to correct optical aberration using biconic Fresnel lenses constructed of suitable birefringent materials, it is similarly considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to straightforwardly do the same for all aberrations, including those arising from birefringence.
The same combination applies to claim 20, as Fresnel lenses inherently comprise a plurality of facets and steps between neighboring facets of the plurality of facets, constructed of a suitable organic solid crystal, e.g. anthracene, and thus necessarily anisotropic.
Regarding claim 6, the modified Rao teaches the Fresnel lens of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the organic solid crystal comprises a single crystalline phase (¶186).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Rao teaches the Fresnel lens of claim 1, and further discloses wherein nx = ny≠ nz, nx = nz≠ ny, ny = nz≠ nx, or nx≠ ny≠ nz (each relationship corresponding to some or complete anisotropy, as Rao has disclosed suitable solid organic crystal materials according to Applicant’s specification, they must necessarily exhibit at least one of the required properties).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Rao teaches the Fresnel lens of claim 1, and further discloses wherein nx > 1.6 (¶6, organic solid crystals suitably exhibiting higher than 1.9, in particular ¶78, principal, e.g. nx, axis indices up to 2.2).
Regarding claim 21, the modified Rao teaches the Fresnel lens of claim 1, but does not explicitly show wherein each of the facets in the plurality of facets have a pitch of approximately 0.5 micrometers. However, the general conditions of the claim have been met as detailed above. 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). Benefit of optimizing the facet pitch amounts to selecting the lens dimensions to be optimized for chosen wavelengths of light, e.g. toward reducing optical aberration. Indeed, the wavelengths of Rao are in the visible range (¶6), as is the claimed pitch (approximately 0.5 microns i.e. 500nm, or blue/green)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the facet pitches of the modified Rao for the purpose of reducing optical aberration of design wavelengths and thus obtained the claimed range.
Claims 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Rao.
Regarding claim 2, the modified Rao teaches the Fresnel lens of claim 1, Official Notice is taken that wherein the lens body of a Fresnel lens comprises a second surface opposite to the structured surface, and the second surface comprises a planar, concave, or convex surface. 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 exceptionally well known lens surfaces to implement the disclosed Fresnel lens of Rao.
Regarding claim 9, the modified Rao teaches the Fresnel lens of claim 1, but does not explicitly show wherein nx> nz> ny. However, Rao has disclosed a suitable solid organic crystal in single phase, as detailed above. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the suitable material would exhibit the required relationship between principal axes with high probability, and orientation of said crystal toward particular refractive goals amounts to a choice of design by the ordinary skilled artisan.
Claim 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bierhuizen (US 9810904 B1).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Rao teaches the Fresnel lens of claim 1, but does not explicitly show wherein the structured surface comprises a first curvature along a first direction of the lens body and a second curvature along a second direction of the lens body orthogonal to the first direction.
Bierhuizen explicitly shows a Fresnel lens wherein the structured surface comprises a first curvature along a first direction of the lens body and a second curvature along a second direction of the lens body orthogonal to the first direction (Fig. 12, C. 5, ll. 28 – 44, “as illustrated in FIG. 12 … a lens body 1200 can include a plurality of Fresnel prisms 1202 forming continuous ridges that loopback on themselves. Such a lens 1200 can have two axis curvature in which, when viewed in each pair of orthogonal cross-sections, the lens body exhibits a curvature (e.g., is not flat). Alternatively, such a lens body can exhibit multi-axis curvature at particular points along the lens body, while exhibiting single axis curvature or flat regions having no curvature along at least one orthogonal cross-section …”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented multi-axis curvature in a Fresnel lens as known from Bierhuizen in the lens of Rao and thus obtained a predictable result, i.e. for the purpose of anamorphic projection or imaging.
Regarding claim 5, the modified Rao teaches the Fresnel lens of claim 1, and inherently discloses wherein the structured surface comprises steps located between neighboring facets of the plurality of facets, these features being defining features of Fresnel lenses (see evidence of Bierhuizen, e.g. Figs. 8, 9).
Claims 10-13, 15, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murray (US 20200103653 A1) in view of Grabarnik (US 20230418052 A1), further in view of Rao, Destain, and Rabner.
Regarding claim 10 and 11, Murray teaches an apparatus comprising: a display (1020); and an optical configuration configured to receive display light from the display (Fig. 13), wherein: the optical configuration comprises a Fresnel lens (1184) assembly including a Fresnel lens (¶88), the Fresnel lens comprises a lens body having a structured surface including a plurality of facets (e.g. Fig. 14A, ¶108).
Murray does not explicitly show a Pancharatnam-Berry Phase lens overlying the Fresnel lens; and the lens body having an organic solid crystal having mutually-orthogonal refractive indices, nx, ny, nz and the lens body having a bi-conic architecture wherein the lens body is configured to reduce geometric aberrations arising from birefringence of the organic solid crystal.
Grabarnik explicitly shows an analogous apparatus having overlying projection optics (904) for a display (902), contemplating Pancharatnam-Berry lenses and Fresnel lenses in combination (¶117). As detailed above, Rao discloses a Fresnel lens body comprising an organic solid crystal (¶6, ¶71) having mutually-orthogonal refractive indices, nx, ny, nz (¶76-78, ¶209, Fig. 1C; note that ¶71 discloses suitable materials as disclosed by Applicant’s specification, ¶27, e.g. anthracene, grown in single crystal phase per ¶186, and must thus exhibit the same optical properties).
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 projection optic combinations known from Grabarnik and Fresnel materials known from Rao to implement the augmented reality device of Murray for the purpose of reducing weight of the optics (by avoiding bulky lenses) while supporting a large field of view (Rao, ¶6).
The modified Murray does not explicitly show the lens body having a bi-conic architecture wherein the lens body is configured to reduce geometric aberrations arising from birefringence of the organic solid crystal.
Destain explicitly shows provision of a Fresnel lens having hyperbolic facets, i.e. biconic (¶36), and indicates the use of conic terms toward correcting optical aberration (¶31). Rabner also shows an analogous Fresnel lens for directing display light to an eye (Fig. 1) having Fresnel surface zones (132, 134) and a bi-conic central zone (¶108), and contemplates improved sharpness acuity without aberration (¶207, generally, and ¶528-530 contemplates additional blazing on the Fresnel facets for further correction). Both references depict the steps between neighboring facets, which as noted above, is an inherent feature of Fresnel lens surfaces.
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 known geometries from Destain and Rabner to implement the Fresnel lens of the modified Murray and thus obtained a predictable variation in focusing position, render the lens advantageous for coating effects, and correct optical aberrations (Destain, ¶36, and Rabner, ¶207, generally, and ¶528-530 contemplates additional blazing on the Fresnel facets for further correction). Absent any criticality of the claimed structures, it being known to correct optical aberration using biconic Fresnel lenses constructed of suitable birefringent materials, it is similarly considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to straightforwardly do the same for all aberrations, including those arising from birefringence.
Regarding claim 12, the modified Murray teaches the apparatus of claim 10, and further discloses wherein: the apparatus comprises a head-mounted display; and the display light is viewable by a user of the apparatus when the user wears the head-mounted display (Murray, ¶1, ¶67, Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Murray teaches the apparatus of claim 10, and further discloses wherein the optical configuration further comprises: a beamsplitter lens (40); and an optical retarder (Grabarnik, ¶114, POD 712’s illumination system including quarter waveplate; ¶117 as cited above indicates compatibility with the embodiment described ¶114).
Regarding claim 15, the modified Murray teaches the apparatus of claim 10, Official Notice is taken that wherein the lens body of a Fresnel lens comprises a second surface opposite to the structured surface, and the second surface comprises a planar, concave, or convex surface. 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 exceptionally well known lens surfaces to implement the disclosed Fresnel lens of the modified Murray.
Regarding claim 22, the modified Murray teaches the Fresnel lens of claim 10, but does not explicitly show wherein each of the facets in the plurality of facets have a pitch of approximately 0.5 micrometers. However, the general conditions of the claim have been met as detailed above. 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). Benefit of optimizing the facet pitch amounts to selecting the lens dimensions to be optimized for chosen wavelengths of light, e.g. toward reducing optical aberration. Indeed, the wavelengths of Murray are in the visible range (Abstract, Fig. 1, the device is for image display), as is the claimed pitch (approximately 0.5 microns i.e. 500nm, or blue/green)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the facet pitches of the modified Rao for the purpose of reducing optical aberration of design wavelengths and thus obtained the claimed range.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Murray as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Lu (US 20210208389 A1) and Gollier (US 10845597 B1).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Murray teaches the apparatus of claim 10, but does not explicitly show wherein the optical configuration has a folded-optic geometry where the display light is both reflected by and transmitted through the Fresnel lens assembly as the display light passes from the display through the optical configuration.
Lu explicitly shows an analogous augmented reality device that uses a pancake lens, i.e. a folded-optic geometry where the display light is both reflected by and transmitted through the lens assembly, stacked with a Pancharatnam-Berry phase lens (¶148). Gollier explicitly shows an analogous head mounted display the pancake lens can be implemented with Fresnel surfaces (Abstract).
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 pancake lens and Pancharatnam-Berry phase lens together to reduce the weight and bulk of the optics in the modified Murray thus improving wearer comfort.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Murray as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Destain.
Regarding claim 16, the modified Murray teaches the apparatus of claim 10, wherein the structured surface comprises a bi-conic architecture.
Destain explicitly shows provision of a Fresnel lens having hyperbolic facets, i.e. biconic (¶36).
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 known geometries from Destain to implement the Fresnel lens of Rao and thus obtained a predictable variation in focusing position, or render the lens advantageous for coating effects (Destain, ¶36).
Claim(s) 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Murray as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Bierhuizen.
Regarding claim 17, the modified Murray teaches the apparatus of claim 10, but does not explicitly show wherein the structured surface comprises a first curvature along a first direction of the lens body and a second curvature along a second direction of the lens body orthogonal to the first direction.
Bierhuizen explicitly shows a Fresnel lens wherein the structured surface comprises a first curvature along a first direction of the lens body and a second curvature along a second direction of the lens body orthogonal to the first direction (Fig. 12, C. 5, ll. 28 – 44, “as illustrated in FIG. 12 … a lens body 1200 can include a plurality of Fresnel prisms 1202 forming continuous ridges that loopback on themselves. Such a lens 1200 can have two axis curvature in which, when viewed in each pair of orthogonal cross-sections, the lens body exhibits a curvature (e.g., is not flat). Alternatively, such a lens body can exhibit multi-axis curvature at particular points along the lens body, while exhibiting single axis curvature or flat regions having no curvature along at least one orthogonal cross-section …”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented multi-axis curvature in a Fresnel lens as known from Bierhuizen in the lens of Rao and thus obtained a predictable result, i.e. for the purpose of anamorphic projection or imaging.
Regarding claim 18, the modified Murray teaches the apparatus of claim 10, and inherently discloses wherein the structured surface comprises steps located between neighboring facets of the plurality of facets (see e.g. Bierhuizen, Figs. 8, 9).
Regarding claim 19, the modified Murray teaches the apparatus of claim 10, and further discloses wherein nx = ny≠ nz, nx = nz≠ ny, ny = nz≠ nx, or nx≠ ny≠ nz (all of these corresponding to some or complete anisotropy, as Rao has disclosed suitable solid organic crystal materials according to Applicant’s specification, they must necessarily exhibit at least one of the required properties; note Bierhuizen’s Figs. 8 or 9 depicting plurality of facets and steps therebetween).
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 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