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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on March 15, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 15 have been amended in the present application. Claims 1-20 are pending in the present application. Applicant’s amendments to the drawings have over each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed December 23, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 15, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pages 12-13 that Liang fails to teach “the optical lens assembly has a total of three lenses with refractive power” of amended claims 1 and 15, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues that Liang fails to teach “the optical lens assembly has a total of three lenses with refractive power.” However, as Applicant also states, Liang teaches two cemented lenses consisting of lenses 122-123 and 124-125. Under BRI a cemented lenses can be considered to be a single lens and thus Liang teaches an optical assembly consisting of three lens (Figure 2 lens 121, cemented lens 122,123, and cemented lens 124,125). Therefore Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument on page 13 that Liang fails to teach 14.86 ≤ TL ≤ 18.80, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., 14.86 ≤ TL ≤ 18.80) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and Examiner maintain the 103 rejection of claims 1 and 15 over Liang.
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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-10, 12-13, 15-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang (Chinese Patent Publication CN 218938668 U – machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Liang teaches an optical lens assembly (Figure 2), comprising:
a first lens (Figure 2 lens 121) with positive refractive power ([0047] lens 121 has positive power);
an optical element group (Figure 2 polarizing absorption film 126, polarizing beam splitter 127, and quarter-wave plate 128) comprising, in order from a visual side to an image source side: an absorptive polarizer ([0046] polarizing absorption film 126), a reflective polarizer ([0046] polarization beam splitter 127 can reflect light with different polarization states) and a phase retarder ([0046] quarter-wave plate 128 is a phase delay device (phase retarder));
a second lens with refractive power (Figure 2 cemented lens 122,123 [0047]);
a third lens with refractive power (Figure 2 cemented lens 124,125, [0047]), and an image source-side surface of the third lens being convex in a paraxial region ([0048] image side of cemented lens 124,125 is a convex surface) thereof; and
a partial-reflective-partial-transmissive element ([0060] beam-splitting film on screen-side of lens 125 partially reflects and transmits light);
wherein the optical lens assembly has a total of three lenses with refractive power (Figure 2 lens 121, cemented lens 122,123, and cemented lens 124,125 totals three lenses with refractive power), the first lens, the second lens, the third lens and the partial-reflective-partial- transmissive element are sequentially arranged from the visual side to the image source side (Figure 2 lens 121, cemented lens 122,123, and cemented lens 124,125 and beam-splitting film on screen-side of lens 125 are sequentially arranged), the optical element group is disposed between the first lens and the third lens (Figure 2 polarizing absorption film 126, polarizing beam splitter 127, and quarter-wave plate 128 are between lenses 121 and cemented lens 124,125), the phase retarder is disposed between the reflective polarizer and the third lens (Figure 2 quarter-wave plate 128 is between polarization beam splitter 127 and cemented lens 124,125), a maximum effective radius of a visual- side surface of the first lens is CA1, an absolute value of a displacement in parallel to an optical axis from an intersection between the visual-side surface of the first lens and the optical axis to the maximum effective radius position on the visual-side surface of the first lens is TDP1.
Liang fails to explicitly teach 5.60<CA1/TDP1<256.36. However, Figure 2 shows the refraction of image rays passing through the optical system which indicates that the drawing is at least representative of a workable scale for the system. A maximum effective radius of a visual-side surface of the first lens 121 is depicted by upper most image ray passing through 121 and forming image on the image plane. Measurements for CA1 and TDP1 are show in the annotated Figure 2 below. From Figure 2, CA1 measured to be 1.05 in and TDP1 measured to be 0.05 in. Thus CA1/TDP1 is calculated to be 21, within the range of 5.60<CA1/TDP1<256.36. Therefore, the range of 5.60<CA1/TDP1<256.36 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention based on Figure 2 of Liang.
PNG
media_image1.png
827
576
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Liang teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Liang fails to explicitly teach an absolute value of a displacement in parallel to the optical axis from an intersection between a visual-side surface of the third lens and the optical axis to the maximum effective radius position on the visual-side surface of the third lens is TDP5, an absolute value of a displacement in parallel to the optical axis from an intersection between the image source-side surface of the third lens and the optical axis to the maximum effective radius position on the image source-side surface of the third lens is TDP6, and the following condition is satisfied: 0 mm2<TDP5*TDP6<26.95 mm2.
However, Figure 2 shows the refraction of image rays passing through the optical system, which indicates that the drawing is at least representative of a workable scale for the system. Measurements for TDP5 and TDP6 are show in the annotated Figure 2 below. From Figure 2 TDP5 is measured to be 0.11 in, TDP6 is measured to be 0.12 in, and the scale is calculated to be 0.6 in = 6 mm. Thus TDP5*TDP6 is calculated to be 1.32 mm2, within the range of 0 mm2 < TDP5*TDP6 < 26.95 mm2. Therefore, the range of 0 mm2<TDP5*TDP6<26.95 mm2 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention based on Figure 2 of
PNG
media_image1.png
827
576
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Liang.
Regarding claim 3, Liang teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Liang further teaches an absolute value of a displacement in parallel to the optical axis from an intersection between an image source-side surface of the first lens and the optical axis to the maximum effective radius position on the image source- side surface of the first lens is TDP2, an absolute value of a displacement in parallel to the optical axis from an intersection between a visual-side surface of the second lens and the optical axis to the maximum effective radius position on the visual-side surface of the second lens is TDP3, and TDP2*TDP3 = 0 mm2 (Table 1 and [0048] image-side surface of lens 121 is planar thus TDP2 = 0 mm). In this instance, 0 mm2 is close to the claimed range of 0 mm2<TDP2*TDP3<16.82 mm2. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). As such, the disclosed lens system of Liang would have made the claimed system obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective time of filing.
Regarding claim 4, Liang teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Liang further teaches a focal length of the third lens is f3, a radius of curvature of the image source-side surface of the third lens is R6, and the following condition is satisfied: -3.56<f3/R6<5.12 (Table 1 f3 calculated to be 162.14 mm, R6 = -138.33 mm, f3/R6 = -1.17).
Regarding claim 5, Liang teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Liang further teaches a focal length of the first lens is f1, a focal length of the optical lens assembly is f, and the following condition is satisfied:3.46<f1/f<12.15 (Table 1 f1 is calculated to be 555.56 mm, f calculated to be 56.68 mm, f1/f = 9.80).
Regarding claim 7, Liang teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Liang further teaches a focal length of the third lens is f3, a focal length of the optical lens assembly is f, and the following condition is satisfied: - 14.64<f3/f<6.80 (Table 1 f3 is calculated to be 162.14 mm, f is calculated to be 56.68 mm, f3/f = 2.22).
Regarding claim 9, Liang teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Liang further teaches a radius of curvature of the visual-side surface of the first lens is R1, a focal length of the first lens is f1, and the following condition is satisfied: -4.04<R1/f1<1.95 (Table 1 R1 = 300 mm, f1 is calculated to be 555.56 mm, R1/f1 = 0.54).
Regarding claim 10, Liang teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Liang further teaches The optical lens assembly as claimed in claim 1, wherein a radius of curvature of the visual-side surface of the first lens is R1, a radius of curvature of an image source-side surface of the first lens is R2, and the following condition is satisfied: -2.38<R1/R2<8.55 (Table 1 and [0048] image-side surface of lens 121 is planar thus R2 = ∞ and R1/R2 = 0).
Regarding claim 12, Liang teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Liang further teaches a radius of curvature of the visual-side surface of the first lens is R1, a thickness of the first lens along the optical axis is CT1,and the following condition is satisfied: -81.96<R1/CT1<150.14 (Table 1 R1 = 300 mm, CT1 = 2.5 mm, R1/CT1 = 120).
Regarding claim 13, Liang teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Liang further teaches a thickness of the second lens along the optical axis is CT2, a thickness of the third lens along the optical axis is CT3, and the following condition is satisfied: 0.23<CT3/CT2<7.81 (Table 1 CT3 = 10 mm, CT2 = 7.3 mm, CT3/CT2 = 1.37).
Regarding claim 15, Liang teaches a head-mounted electronic device ([0002] VR display device), comprising:
a housing ([0002] VR display device will have a housing to hold the built in screen and near-eye optical imaging system);
an optical lens assembly disposed in the housing (Figure 2, [0002] near-eye optical imaging system is in VR display device);
an image source (Figure 2 display unit 110, [0038]) disposed on an image source plane of the optical lens assembly in the housing (Figure 2 display unit 110 is at the image source plane of the optical imaging system, [0002] display is part of VR display device); and
a controller disposed in the housing and electrically connected to the image source ([0002] VR display device will have a controller in order to display content);
wherein the optical lens assembly (Figure 2) comprising:
a first lens (Figure 2 lens 121) with positive refractive power ([0047] lens 121 has positive power);
an optical element group (Figure 2 polarizing absorption film 126, polarizing beam splitter 127, and quarter-wave plate 128) comprising, in order from a visual side to an image source side: an absorptive polarizer ([0046] polarizing absorption film 126), a reflective polarizer ([0046] polarization beam splitter 127 can reflect light with different polarization states) and a phase retarder ([0046] quarter-wave plate 128 is a phase delay device (phase retarder));
a second lens with refractive power (Figure 2 cemented lens 122,123, [0047]);
a third lens with refractive power (Figure 2 cemented lens 124,125, [0047]), and an image source-side surface of the third lens being convex in a paraxial region ([0048] image side of cemented lens 124,125 has a convex surface) thereof; and
a partial-reflective-partial-transmissive element ([0060] beam-splitting film on screen-side of lens 125 partially reflects and transmits light);
wherein the optical lens assembly has a total of three lenses with refractive power (Figure 2 lens 121, cemented lens 122,123, and cemented lens 124,125 totals three lenses with refractive power), the first lens, the second lens, the third lens and the partial-reflective-partial- transmissive element are sequentially arranged from the visual side to the image source side (Figure 2 lens 121, cemented lens 122,123, and cemented lens 124,125 and beam-splitting film on screen-side of lens 125 are sequentially arranged), the optical element group is disposed between the first lens and the third lens (Figure 2 polarizing absorption film 126, polarizing beam splitter 127, and quarter-wave plate 128 are between lens 121 and cemented lens 124,125), the phase retarder is disposed between the reflective polarizer and the third lens (Figure 2 quarter-wave plate 128 is between polarization beam splitter 127 and cemented lens 124,125), a maximum effective radius of a visual- side surface of the first lens is CA1, an absolute value of a displacement in parallel to an optical axis from an intersection between the visual-side surface of the first lens and the optical axis to the maximum effective radius position on the visual-side surface of the first lens is TDP1.
Liang fails to explicitly teach 5.60<CA1/TDP1<256.36. However, Figure 2 shows the refraction of image rays passing through the optical system, which indicates that the drawing is at least representative of a workable scale for the system. A maximum effective radius of a visual-side surface of the first lens 121 is depicted by upper most image ray passing through 121 and forming image on the image plane. Measurements for CA1 and TDP1 are show in the annotated Figure 2 below.
From Figure 2, CA1 measured to be 1.05 in and TDP1 measured to be 0.05 in. Thus CA1/TDP1 is calculated to be 21, within the range of 5.60<CA1/TDP1<256.36. Therefore, the range of 5.60<CA1/TDP1<256.36 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention based on Figure 2 of Liang.
PNG
media_image1.png
827
576
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Liang teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 15. Liang fails to explicitly teach an absolute value of a displacement in parallel to the optical axis from an intersection between a visual-side surface of the third lens and the optical axis to the maximum effective radius position on the visual-side surface of the third lens is TDP5, an absolute value of a displacement in parallel to the optical axis from an intersection between the image source-side surface of the third lens and the optical axis to the maximum effective radius position on the image source-side surface of the third lens is TDP6, and the following condition is satisfied: 0 mm2<TDP5*TDP6<26.95 mm2.
However, Figure 2 shows the refraction of image rays passing through the optical system, which indicates that the drawing is at least representative of a workable scale for the system. Measurements for TDP5 and TDP6 are show in the annotated Figure 2 below. From Figure 2 TDP5 is measured to be 0.11 in, TDP6 is measured to be 0.12 in, and the scale is calculated to be 0.6 in = 6 mm. Thus TDP5*TDP6 is calculated to be 1.32 mm2, within the range of 0 mm2 < TDP5*TDP6 < 26.95 mm2. Therefore, the range of 0 mm2<TDP5*TDP6<26.95 mm2 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention based on Figure 2 of
PNG
media_image1.png
827
576
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Liang.
Regarding claim 18, Liang teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 15. Liang further teaches The optical lens assembly as claimed in claim 1, wherein a radius of curvature of the visual-side surface of the first lens is R1, a radius of curvature of an image source-side surface of the first lens is R2, and the following condition is satisfied: -2.38<R1/R2<8.55 (Table 1 and [0048] image-side surface of lens 121 is planar thus R2 = ∞ and R1/R2 = 0).
Regarding claim 19, Liang teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 15. Liang fails to explicitly teach a maximum effective radius of an image source-side surface of the second lens is CA4, an absolute value of a displacement in parallel to the optical axis from an intersection between a visual-side surface of the second lens and the optical axis to the maximum effective radius position on the visual-side surface of the second lens is TDP3, an absolute value of a displacement in parallel to the optical axis from an intersection between the image source-side surface of the third lens and the optical axis to the maximum effective radius position on the image source-side surface of the third lens is TDP6, and the following condition is satisfied: 1.39<CA4/(TDP3+TDP6)<6.68.
However, Figure 2 shows the refraction of image rays passing through lenses 121, 123, and 124, which indicates that the drawing is at least representative of a workable scale for the system. Measurements for CA4, TDP3, and TDP6 are show in the annotated Figure 2 below. From Figure 2 CA4 is measured to be 1.9 in, TDP3 is measured to be 0.16 in, and TDP6 is measured to be 0.17 in. Thus CA4/(TDP3+TDP6) is calculated to be 5.76, within the range of 1.39<CA4/(TDP3+TDP6)<6.68. Therefore, the range of 1.39<CA4/(TDP3+TDP6)<6.68 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention based on Figure 2 of Liang.
PNG
media_image1.png
827
576
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, Liang teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 15. Liang further teaches a thickness of the second lens along the optical axis is CT2, a thickness of the third lens along the optical axis is CT3, and the following condition is satisfied: 0.23<CT3/CT2<7.81 (Table 1 CT3 = 10 mm, CT2 = 7.3 mm, CT3/CT2 = 1.37).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 8, 11, 14, and 17 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 6 and 17, the best prior art of record Liang teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claims 1 and 15. Liang fails to teach or reasonably suggest “-124.19<f2/CT2<9.78” in combination with the intervening limitations of the claims (Table 1 f2 is calculated to be 3983.67 mm, CT2 = 7.3 mm, f2/CT2 = 545.57). Moreover, modifying the system to satisfy such a condition would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed since such a modification would have unpredictable results on the overall optical system.
As such, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach the cumulative details of claims 6 and 17, specifically the limitation: “-124.19<f2/CT2<9.78”
Regarding claim 8, Liang teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Liang fails to teach or reasonably suggest “-3.25<f2/f3<-0.25” in combination with the intervening limitations of the claims (Table 1 f2 calculated to be 3982.67 mm, f3 calculated to be 162.14 mm, f2/f3= 24.56). Moreover, modifying the system to satisfy such a condition would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed since such a modification would have unpredictable results on the overall optical system.
As such, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach the cumulative details of claim 8, specifically the limitation: “-3.25<f2/f3<-0.25”
Regarding claim 11, Liang teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Liang fails to teach or reasonably suggest “1.39<CA4/(TDP3+TDP6)<6.68” in combination with the intervening limitations of the claims (See annotated Figure 2 above, CA4 measured to be 1.9, TDP3 measured to be 0.16, and TDP6 measured to be 0.17, CA4/(TDP3+TDP6) = 13.57). Moreover, modifying the system to satisfy such a condition would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed since such a modification would have unpredictable results on the overall optical system.
As such, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach the cumulative details of claim 11, specifically the limitation: “1.39<CA4/(TDP3+TDP6)<6.68”
Regarding claim 14, Liang teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Liang fails to teach or reasonably suggest “0.45<CT3/TDP6<3.60” in combination with the intervening limitations of the claims (See annotated Figure 2 above TDP6 measured to be 0.16 in and the scale is calculated to be 0.6 in = 6 mm, Table 1 CT3 = 10 mm, CT3/TDP6 = 8.33). Moreover, modifying the system to satisfy such a condition would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed since such a modification would have unpredictable results on the overall optical system.
As such, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach the cumulative details of claim 14, specifically the limitation: “0.45<CT3/TDP6<3.60”
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 ALEX PARK RICKEL whose telephone number is (703)756-4561. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 a.m. - 6 p.m. 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, 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.
Alex Rickel
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/A.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights