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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 5-20 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 08/27/2025.
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, 4, and 21-22 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.
Claim 1 recites that “the two surfaces are substantially planar and substantially parallel.” The term “substantially” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what degree of curvature would be considered “substantially planar” and what angles would be included such that the surfaces are “substantially parallel.” Moreover, as optical systems are dynamical systems, small changes to parameters of the systems can have widely varied and unpredictable results. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of two surfaces being “substantially planar and substantially parallel.” For the purposes of examination, any cylinder will be interpreted as reading on the claimed cylinder having two surfaces that are substantially planar and substantially parallel.
Claims 4 and 21-22 are rejected as being dependent upon claim 1 and failing to cure the deficiencies of the rejected base claim.
Claim 21 recites that “the thickness of the vision correction adapter is less than a threshold thickness for correcting nearsightedness, the threshold thickness being a thickness at which the optical system is configured to produce substantially collimated rays for rays emitted from a pixel of the display device.” However, “a thickness for correcting nearsightedness” is a relative term that depends on the amount of nearsightedness that is intended to be corrected. Specifically, a thickness that corrects for a person having a nearsighted prescription of -2.00D would not correct for a nearsighted prescription of -4.00D. It is unclear what thicknesses are intended to be encompassed by the claim.
Moreover, if the threshold thickness is intended to be a thickness “at which the optical system is configured to produce substantially collimated rays for rays emitted from a pixel of the display device,” it is unclear how such a threshold thickness can be “for correcting nearsightedness,” as the system merely produces collimated light. Further, the term “substantially” in claim 21 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what amount of convergence or divergence would be considered “substantially collimated.” Moreover, as optical systems are dynamical systems, small changes to parameters of the systems can have widely varied and unpredictable results. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of a thickness that provides “substantially collimated” rays.
For the purposes of examination, any system having a vision correction adapter provided with a structure capable of correcting nearsightedness will be interpreted as reading on the claimed invention.
Claim 22 recites that “the thickness of the vision correction adapter is larger than a threshold thickness for correcting farsightedness, the threshold thickness being a thickness at which the optical system is configured to produce substantially collimated rays for rays emitted from a pixel of the display device.” However, “a thickness for correcting farsightedness” is a relative term that depends on the amount of farsightedness that is intended to be corrected. Specifically, a thickness that corrects for a person having a farsighted prescription of +2.00D would not correct for a farsighted prescription of +4.00D. It is unclear what thicknesses are intended to be encompassed by the claim.
Moreover, if the threshold thickness is intended to be a thickness “at which the optical system is configured to produce substantially collimated rays for rays emitted from a pixel of the display device,” it is unclear how such a threshold thickness can be “for correcting farsightedness,” as the system merely produces collimated light. Further, the term “substantially” in claim 22 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what amount of convergence or divergence would be considered “substantially collimated.” Moreover, as optical systems are dynamical systems, small changes to parameters of the systems can have widely varied and unpredictable results. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of a thickness that provides “substantially collimated” rays.
For the purposes of examination, any system having a vision correction adapter provided with a structure capable of correcting farsightedness will be interpreted as reading on the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ye (Chinese Pub. No. CN 115291417 A). All citations to Ye are directed toward the English machine translation of the foreign document, provided as a reference.
Regarding claim 1, Ye teaches an optical system, comprising:
a first lens (120) including a first optically transparent member having a first surface and a second surface (See e.g. Figs. 2-5, 9, 13-14, and 18; Paragraphs 0042-0044 and 0050-0052),
a second lens (130) including a second optically transparent member having a third surface and a fourth surface (See e.g. Figs. 2-5, 9, 13-14, and 18; Paragraphs 0042-0044, 0046, and 0050-0052), and
a vision correction adapter (112, 142) that is positioned between the first lens and the second lens (See e.g. Figs. 2-5, 9, 13-14, and 18; Paragraphs 0042, 0052, and 0062-0070),
the vision correction adapter is a cylinder having two surfaces, the vision correction adapter includes a central opening (112), the two surfaces are substantially planar and substantially parallel and a thickness of the vision correction adapter between the two surfaces is constant (See e.g. Figs. 2-5, 9, 13-14, and 18, with particular attention to Fig. 9, reproduced below; Paragraphs 0042-0043, 0050-0052, and 0060-0070),
the first surface and the second surface of the first lens are unmodified by the vision correction adapter (See e.g. Figs. 2-5, 9, 13-14, and 18; Paragraphs 0042-0044, 0050-0052, and 0062-0070),
the third surface and the fourth surface of the second lens are unmodified by the vision correction adapter (See e.g. Figs. 2-5, 9, 13-14, and 18; Paragraphs 0042-0044, 0050-0052, and 0062-0070), and
wherein the first lens and the second lens are spaced apart by the thickness of the vision correction adapter (See e.g. Figs. 2-5, 9, 13-14, and 18; Paragraphs 0042-0044, 0050-0052, and 0062-0070),
the thickness of the vision correction adapter is selected to correct for one of nearsightedness or farsightedness (See e.g. Figs. 2-5, 9, 13-14, and 18; Paragraphs 0042-0043, 0050-0052, and 0060-0070), and
a center region of the vision correction adapter includes an opening (112) (See e.g. Figs. 2-5, 9, 13-14, and 18; Paragraphs 0042, 0052, and 0062-0070).
PNG
media_image1.png
271
604
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: Ye teaches a vision correction adapter reading on the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cooke et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,378,806; hereinafter – “Cooke”).
Regarding claim 1, Cooke teaches an optical system, comprising:
a first lens (460-A) including a first optically transparent member having a first surface and a second surface (See e.g. Figs. 4-7 and 9; C. 7, L. 9-38; C. 9, L. 11-23),
a second lens (460-B) including a second optically transparent member having a third surface and a fourth surface (See e.g. Figs. 4-7 and 9; C. 7, L. 9-38; C. 9, L. 11-23), and
a vision correction adapter (430-A, 430-B) that is positioned between the first lens and the second lens (See e.g. Figs. 4-9; C. 7, L. 9-29; C. 8, L. 17-32; C. 9, L. 11-44),
the vision correction adapter is a cylinder having two surfaces (430-A, 430-B), the vision correction adapter includes a central opening (See e.g. Figs. 4-9; C. 7, L. 9-29; C. 8, L. 17-32; C. 9, L. 11-44), the two surfaces are substantially planar and substantially parallel, and a thickness of the vision correction adapter between the two surfaces is constant (See e.g. Figs. 4-9; C. 7, L. 9-29; C. 8, L. 17-32; C. 9, L. 11-44),
the first surface and the second surface of the first lens are unmodified by the vision correction adapter (See e.g. Figs. 4-9; C. 7, L. 9-29; C. 8, L. 17-32; C. 9, L. 11-44),
the third surface and the fourth surface of the second lens are unmodified by the vision correction adapter (See e.g. Figs. 4-9; C. 7, L. 9-29; C. 8, L. 17-32; C. 9, L. 11-44), and
the first lens and the second lens are spaced apart by a thickness of the vision correction adapter (See e.g. Figs. 4-9; C. 7, L. 9-29; C. 8, L. 17-32; C. 9, L. 11-44).
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.
Claim(s) 4 and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye or Cooke, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamanaka et al. (PCT Pub. No. WO 2022/180888; hereinafter – “Yamanaka”). All citations to Yamanaka are directed toward the U.S. Publication of the National Stage application (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2023/0393384), used as an English translation.
Regarding claim 4, Ye and Cooke each teaches the optical system according to claim 1, as above.
Ye and Cooke both fail to explicitly disclose a reflective polarizer disposed on one of the first surface and the second surface, the reflective polarizer being configured to pass through light having a first linear polarization state and reflect light having a second linear polarization state that is orthogonal to the first linear polarization state, and a beam splitter disposed on one of the third surface and the fourth surface, the beam splitter being configured to partially transmit and partially reflect light incident onto the beamsplitter, an optical cavity of at least one of the first lens and the second lens being formed between the reflective polarizer and the beam splitter, wherein the optical system is configured to direct light from a display device to a viewing area, a path of the light from the display device traveling through the optical cavity a plurality of times.
However, Yamanaka teaches an eyepiece optical system and display device comprising a first lens (21) including a first optically transparent member having a first surface and a second surface (See e.g. Figs. 2-3, 5, 11, 16, and 21; Paragraphs 0040-0041 and 0057-0065), a second lens (22) including a second optically transparent member having a third surface and a fourth surface (See e.g. Figs. 2-3, 5, 11, 16, and 21; Paragraphs 0040-0041 and 0057-0065), and a vision correction adapter (13, 32) that is positioned between the first lens and the second lens (See e.g. Fig. 2; Paragraphs 0040, 0042, and 0047-0053), wherein the first lens and the second lens are spaced apart by a thickness of the vision correction adapter (See e.g. Figs. 2-3, 5, 11, 16, and 21; Paragraphs 0040-0042, 0047-0053, and 0057-0065), the thickness of the vision correction adapter is selected to correct for one of nearsightedness or farsightedness (See e.g. Fig. 2; Paragraphs 0040, 0042, 0047-0053, and 0084), and a center region of the vision correction adapter includes an opening (See e.g. Fig. 2; Paragraphs 0040, 0042, and 0047-0053), further comprising a reflective polarizer (41, 42) disposed on one of the first surface and the second surface, the reflective polarizer being configured to pass through light having a first linear polarization state and reflect light having a second linear polarization state that is orthogonal to the first linear polarization state (See e.g. Figs. 3-5, 11, 16, and 21; Paragraphs 0061 and 0070-0073), and a beam splitter (43) disposed on one of the third surface and the fourth surface, the beam splitter being configured to partially transmit and partially reflect light incident onto the beamsplitter, an optical cavity of at least one of the first lens and the second lens being formed between the reflective polarizer and the beam splitter (See e.g. Figs. 3-5, 11, 16, and 21; Paragraphs 0063-0064 and 0070-0073), wherein the optical system is configured to direct light from a display device (14) to a viewing area, a path of the light from the display device traveling through the optical cavity a plurality of times (See e.g. Figs. 3-5, 11, 16, and 21; Paragraphs 0067-0073).
Yamanaka teaches this reflective polarizer and beam splitter such that “the visual optical system 12 can be a thin type with a short optical overall length, and the display device 1 can be easily reduced in size” and such that “The visual optical system 12 of the present embodiment has a thin configuration and a configuration that facilitates to obtain a wide viewing angle in the display device 1” (Paragraph 0041) in order to provide “an eyepiece optical system and a display device capable of facilitating to ensure a visual field of a user” (Paragraph 0003).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical system of Ye or Cooke with the reflective polarizer and beam splitter of Yamanaka such that “the visual optical system 12 can be a thin type with a short optical overall length, and the display device 1 can be easily reduced in size” and such that “The visual optical system 12 of the present embodiment has a thin configuration and a configuration that facilitates to obtain a wide viewing angle in the display device 1” in order to provide “an eyepiece optical system and a display device capable of facilitating to ensure a visual field of a user,” as taught by Yamanaka (Paragraphs 0003 and 0041).
Regarding claim 21, Ye in view of Yamanaka and Cooke in view of Yamanaka each teaches the optical system according to claim 4, as above.
Ye further teaches that the thickness of the vision correction adapter is less than a threshold thickness for correcting nearsightedness, the threshold thickness being a thickness at which the optical system is configured to produce substantially collimated rays for rays emitted from a pixel of the display device (See e.g. Figs. 2-5, 9, 13-14, and 18; Paragraphs 0042-0043, 0050-0052, and 0060-0070).
Additionally, Cooke further teaches that the thickness of the vision correction adapter is less than a threshold thickness for correcting nearsightedness, the threshold thickness being a thickness at which the optical system is configured to produce substantially collimated rays for rays emitted from a pixel of the display device (See e.g. Figs. 4-9; C. 3, L. 44-67; C. 7, L. 9-29; C. 8, L. 17-32; C. 9, L. 11-44; C. 12, L. 60 – C. 13, L. 10; C. 14, L. 54-67).
Regarding claim 22, Ye in view of Yamanaka and Cooke in view of Yamanaka each teaches the optical system according to claim 4, as above.
Ye further teaches that the thickness of the vision correction adapter is larger than a threshold thickness for correcting farsightedness, the threshold thickness being a thickness at which the optical system is configured to produce substantially collimated rays for rays emitted from a pixel of the display device (See e.g. Figs. 2-5, 9, 13-14, and 18; Paragraphs 0042-0043, 0050-0052, and 0060-0070).
Additionally, Cooke further teaches that the thickness of the vision correction adapter is larger than a threshold thickness for correcting farsightedness, the threshold thickness being a thickness at which the optical system is configured to produce substantially collimated rays for rays emitted from a pixel of the display device (See e.g. Figs. 4-9; C. 3, L. 44-67; C. 7, L. 9-29; C. 8, L. 17-32; C. 9, L. 11-44; C. 12, L. 60 – C. 13, L. 10; C. 14, L. 54-67).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 10-11, filed 12/08/2025, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection over Ye or Cooke have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Ye and Cooke each fails to disclose “a vision correction adapter that is positioned between the first lens and the second lens, wherein the vision correction adapter is a cylinder having two surfaces, the vision correction adapter includes a central opening, the two surfaces are substantially planar and substantially parallel, and a thickness of the vision correction adapter between the two surfaces is constant, the first surface and the second surface of the first lens are unmodified by the vision correction adapter, the third surface and the fourth surface of the second lens are unmodified by the vision correction adapter.” However, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Specifically, Ye’s “elastic component 142” is formed between two substantially planar and substantially parallel surfaces of the lenses 120 and 130 to have a constant thickness with an opening, as can be clearly seen in Fig. 9 of Ye, reproduced above and described in Paragraphs 0042-0043, 0050-0052, and 0060-0070. Thus, Examiner maintains that Ye anticipates the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed language.
Additionally, Cooke’s Ye’s displacement rings are formed between two substantially planar and substantially parallel surfaces which are bounded by the housing 450 and end plage 455 to have a constant thickness with an opening, as can be clearly seen in Figs. 6, 7, and 9 of Cooke and described in See e.g. Figs. 4-9; C. 7, L. 9-29; C. 8, L. 17-32; C. 9, L. 11-44. Thus, Examiner maintains that Cooke anticipates the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed language.
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 Nicholas R Pasko whose telephone number is (571)270-1876. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 5 PM.
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, William Kraig can be reached at 571-272-8660. 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.
Nicholas R. Pasko
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2896
/Nicholas R. Pasko/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896