DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This office action is in response to a filing of 5/11/2026.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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.
Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/11/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng et al. (CN112630973A, hereinafter called Peng'973', English translation attached).
Regarding claim 1, Peng’973’ teaches a lens assembly (Peng’973’, paragraph [n0039] “Figure 5 is a schematic diagram of the eyepiece optical system), comprising N number of lenses (see Peng’973’, fig. 5, having 5 number of lenses, so N = 5);
wherein the N number of lenses comprises a first lens (Peng’973’, fig. 5, lens L5 has been referred to as a first lens) having a receiving surface (Peng’973’, fig. 5, lens surface 10 has been referred to as a receiving surface) configured to receive image light (see annotated image, Peng’973’, fig. 5, the image light; paragraph [n0002], Head-mounted displays use optical technology to guide the video image light emitted by a miniature image display to the user's pupils EYE) from a display panel (Peng’973’, fig. 5, Image plane IMG has been referred to as a display panel) and an N-th lens (Peng’973’, fig. 5, lens L1 has been referred to as N-th) having an exit surface (Peng’973’, fig. 5, lens surface 1) through which the image light exits (see annotated image, Peng’973’, fig. 5, lens L1 having an exit surface 1 through which the image light exits), N≥2 (N = 5, Peng’973’, described above);
wherein, on a side (fig. 5, the EYE side) where the image light exits the N-th lens (the lens L1), the N-th lens has a length and a width (see annotated image, Peng’973’, fig. 5, the lens L1 has a length and a width); and a ratio of the length to the width is greater than 4:1 (approximately 5.4:1; see Peng’973’, fig. 5, referring to the scale in the annotated image, Peng’973’, fig. 5, the length is approximately 2.38 in, the width is approximately 0.44 in, thus, a ratio of the length to the width is approximately greater than 5.4:1; it is a well-established proposition that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), see MPEP 2114.04(IV).);
wherein at least an (N-3)-th lens (Peng’973’, fig. 5, fourth lens L4 has been referred to as an (N-3)-th lens) is a biconvex lens (see paragraph [n0074] “the fourth lens L4 is a biconvex lens”);
an (N-1)-th lens (fig. 5, second lens L2 has been referred to as an (N-1)-th lens) is a biconvex lens (see annotated image, “Peng’973’, the eyepiece design data for the second embodiment, fig. 5”, the second lens L2, the curvature radius of the surface 3 is 16.79 and the curvature radius of the surface 4 is -188.19; thus, the second lens L2 is a biconvex lens); and
the (N-3)-th lens (fig. 5, lens L4), an (N-2)-th lens (see annotated image, Peng’973’, fig. 5, the lens L3 has been referred to as an (N-2)-th lens), the (N-1)-th lens (the lens L1), and the N-th lens (the lens L1) are sequentially ranged along a light path (see annotated image, Peng’973’, fig. 5, the image light) from the display panel (IMG) to the exit surface (the surface 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
597
705
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
628
1248
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Peng’973’ discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and Peng’973’ further teaches wherein the exit surface (Peng’973’, fig. 5, surface 1) is a first even aspheric surface (see annotated image, “Peng’973’, the eyepiece design data for the second embodiment, fig. 5”, the aspherical coefficient, k of the surface 1 is 114.96; paragraph [n0079] “k is the aspherical coefficient”; paragraph [n0075] “one or more optical surfaces of the first lens L1 and the second lens L2 are even-order aspherical surfaces”; thus, the surface 1 is a first even aspheric surface).
Regarding claim 3, Peng’973’ discloses the invention as described in Claim 2 and Peng’973’ further teaches wherein the first even aspheric surface (the surface 1) satisfies following function:
PNG
media_image3.png
93
413
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(See annotated image below, “Peng’973’, the expression for an aspherical surface”,
PNG
media_image4.png
454
1037
media_image4.png
Greyscale
;paragraph [n0075] “one or more optical surfaces of the first lens and the second lens are even-order aspherical surfaces”; paragraph [n0077] “the expression for an aspherical surface”);
wherein Z stands for a shortest distance between a respective point on the first even aspheric surface to a plane tangent to the first even aspheric surface at a vertex of the even aspheric surface (see paragraph [n0079] “Where z is the sag of the optical surface”);
c stands for a curvature of the even aspheric surface (see paragraph [n0079] “c is the curvature at the vertex of the aspherical surface”);
k stands for a quadratic surface coefficient (see paragraph [n0079] “k is the aspherical coefficient”);
r stands for a shortest distance between the respective point on the first even aspheric surface to an optical axis of the lens assembly (paragraph [n0079] “r is the distance coordinate from the point on the surface to the optical axis of the lens system.”); and
A2i stands for a multiple term coefficient (see Peng’973’, paragraph [n0079], “α2, 4, 6… are coefficients of each order”).
Regarding claim 4, Peng’973’ discloses the invention as described in Claim 2 and Peng’973’ further teaches wherein the N-th lens (fig. 5, the lens L1) has a second even aspheric surface (see fig. 5, the surface 2 and see annotated image, “Peng’973’, the eyepiece design data for the second embodiment, fig. 5”, the aspherical coefficient, k of the surface 2 is -4.06; paragraph [n0075] “one or more optical surfaces of the first lens L1 and the second lens L2 are even-order aspherical surfaces”; thus, the surface 2 is an even aspheric surface) opposite to the first even aspheric surface (fig. 5, the surface 1).
Regarding claim 5, Peng’973’ discloses the invention as described in Claim 2 and Peng’973’ further teaches wherein at least one of two opposite surfaces of the (N-1)-th lens (see fig. 5, surface 3 and surface 4 are opposite surfaces of the lens L2) is an even aspheric surface (see annotated image, “Peng’973’, the eyepiece design data for the second embodiment, fig. 5”, the aspherical coefficient, k of the surface 3 is -3.66; paragraph [n0075] “one or more optical surfaces of the first lens L1 and the second lens L2 are even-order aspherical surfaces”; thus, the surface 3 is an even aspheric surface).
Regarding claim 6, Peng’973’ discloses the invention as described in Claim 2 and Peng’973’ further teaches wherein at least one of two opposite surfaces of the (N-2)-th lens (see fig. 5, surface 5 and surface 6 are opposite surfaces of the lens L3) is an even aspheric surface (see annotated image, “Peng’973’, the eyepiece design data for the second embodiment, fig. 5”, the aspherical coefficient, k of the surface 5 is 24.52; paragraph [n0075] “all optical surfaces of the third lens L3 are even-order aspherical surfaces”; thus, the surface 5 is an even aspheric surface).
Regarding claim 8, Peng’973’ discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and Peng’973’ further teaches wherein two opposite surfaces of the N-th lens (see Peng’973’, fig. 5, surface 1 and surface 2 are opposite surfaces of the lens L1) and two opposite surfaces of the (N-1)-th lens (see Peng’973’, fig. 5, surface 3 and surface 4 are opposite surfaces of the lens L2) are even aspheric surfaces (paragraph [n0075] “optical surfaces of the first lens L1 and the second lens L2 are even-order aspherical surfaces”; also, see annotated image, “Peng’973’, the eyepiece design data for the second embodiment, fig. 5”, the aspherical coefficient, k of all the surfaces ≠ 0; thus, the surfaces of the first lens L1 and the second lens L2 are even aspheric surfaces).
Regarding claim 13, Peng’973’ discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and Peng’973’ further teaches wherein the N-th lens (Peng’973’, fig. 5, the lens L1) is a biconvex lens (see annotated image, “Peng’973’, the eyepiece design data for the second embodiment, fig. 5”, the lens L1, the curvature radius of the surface 1 is 176.54 and the curvature radius of the surface 2 is -14.06; thus, the lens L1 is a biconvex lens).
Claims 7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng’973’ et al. (CN112630973A, hereinafter called Peng'973', English translation attached), and further in view of Peng et al. (US20250102768, hereinafter called Peng).
Regarding claim 7, Peng’973’ discloses the invention as described in Claim 2, Peng’973’ does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one of two opposite surfaces of the (N-3)-th lens is an even aspheric surface.
However, Peng teaches the analogous lens assembly (Peng, figs. 1-20, abstract, The present invention relates to an eyepiece optical system and a head-mounted display device), and further teaches wherein at least one of two opposite surfaces of the (N-3)-th lens (Peng, fig. 5, the lens L4 has been referred to as the (N-3)-th lens) is an even aspheric surface (see Peng, fig. 5, paragraph [0075], the optical surfaces of the first lens L1, the second lens L2, the third lens L3, the fourth lens L4, the fifth lens L5, and the sixth lens L6 are all even-order aspherical surfaces, and the even-order aspherical surfaces).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Peng’973’ to have the specific surface as taught by Peng for the purpose to achieve a large field-of-view angle and large aperture while further improving the image quality of a central field of view and an edge field of view, reducing the difference in the image quality between the central field of view and the edge field of view, and achieving more uniform image quality and low distortion throughout the entire frame (Peng, paragraph [0077]).
Regarding claim 9, Peng’973’ discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and Peng’973’ further teaches wherein two opposite surfaces of the N-th lens (see Peng’973’, fig. 5, surface 1 and surface 2 are opposite surfaces of the lens L1), two opposite surfaces of the (N-2)-th lens (see fig. 5, surface 5 and surface 6 are opposite surfaces of the lens L3) are even aspheric surfaces (see annotated image, “Peng’973’, the eyepiece design data for the second embodiment, fig. 5”, the aspherical coefficient, k of all the surfaces ≠ 0; paragraph [n0075] “optical surfaces of the first lens L1 and the second lens L2 are even-order aspherical surfaces; all optical surfaces of the third lens L3 are even-order aspherical surfaces”);
but Peng’973’ does not explicitly disclose wherein two opposite surfaces of an (N-4)-th lens are even aspheric surfaces.
However, Peng teaches the analogous lens assembly (Peng, figs. 1-20, abstract, The present invention relates to an eyepiece optical system and a head-mounted display device), and further teaches wherein two opposite surfaces of an (N-4)-th lens are even aspheric surfaces (Peng, fig.5, the lens L5 has been referred to as an (N-4)-th lens, see Peng, fig. 5, described in paragraph [0075], the optical surfaces of the first lens L1, the second lens L2, the third lens L3, the fourth lens L4, the fifth lens L5, and the sixth lens L6 are all even-order aspherical surfaces, and the even-order aspherical surfaces, thus, Peng teaches wherein two opposite surfaces of an (N-4)-th lens are even aspheric surfaces).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Peng’973’ to have the specific surface as taught by Peng for the purpose to achieve a large field-of-view angle and large aperture while further improving the image quality of a central field of view and an edge field of view, reducing the difference in the image quality between the central field of view and the edge field of view, and achieving more uniform image quality and low distortion throughout the entire frame (Peng, paragraph [0077]).
Regarding claim 10, Peng’973’ discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and Peng’973’ further teaches wherein two opposite surfaces of the N-th lens (fig. 5, the lens L1), two opposite surfaces of the (N-1)-th lens (the lens L2), two opposite surfaces of the (N-2)-th lens (the lens L3) are even aspheric surfaces (see annotated image, “Peng’973’, the eyepiece design data for the second embodiment, fig. 5”, the aspherical coefficient, k of all the surfaces ≠ 0; paragraph [n0075] “one or more optical surfaces of the first lens L1 and the second lens L2 are even-order aspherical surfaces; all optical surfaces of the third lens L3 are even-order aspherical surfaces”; thus, the two opposite surfaces of the N-th lens, two opposite surfaces of the (N-1)-th lens, two opposite surfaces of the (N-2)-th lens are even aspheric surfaces);
but Peng’973’ does not explicitly disclose wherein two opposite surfaces of an (N-3)-th lens are even aspheric surfaces.
However, Peng teaches the analogous lens assembly (Peng, figs. 1-20, abstract, The present invention relates to an eyepiece optical system and a head-mounted display device), and further teaches wherein two opposite surfaces of the (N-3)-th lens are even aspheric surfaces (see Peng, fig. 5, the lens L4 has been referred to as an (N-3)-th lens, in paragraph [0075], the optical surfaces of the first lens L1, the second lens L2, the third lens L3, the fourth lens L4, the fifth lens L5, and the sixth lens L6 are all even-order aspherical surfaces, and the even-order aspherical surfaces, thus, Peng teaches wherein two opposite surfaces of the (N-3)-th lens are even aspheric surfaces).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Peng’973’ to have the specific surface as taught by Peng for the purpose to achieve a large field-of-view angle and large aperture while further improving the image quality of a central field of view and an edge field of view, reducing the difference in the image quality between the central field of view and the edge field of view, and achieving more uniform image quality and low distortion throughout the entire frame (Peng, paragraph [0077]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng’973’ et al. (CN112630973A, hereinafter called Peng'973', English translation attached), and further in view of Kuo et al. (US20200409037).
Regarding claim 20, Peng’973’ discloses the invention as described in Claim 1, Peng’973’ does not explicitly teach wherein a waveguide configured to receive the image light exited from the lens assembly.
However, Kuo teaches the analogous lens assembly, comprising N number of lenses (Kuo, figs. 1-6, abstract, an optical lens and a head-mounted display device including the optical lens are provided. The optical lens includes a first lens, a second lens, a third lens, a fourth lens, and a fifth lens sequentially arranged from a light exit side to a light incident side), and further teaches wherein a waveguide (Kuo, fig. 4, waveguide element 230) configured to receive the image light exited (see Kuo, fig. 4, the image light from IM exited) from the lens assembly (Kuo, fig. 4, optical lens 110 has been referred to as the lens assembly).
(note: Kuo also teaches in paragraphs [0007]-[0008]): [0007] In order to achieve one or a portion of or all of the objects or other objects, another embodiment of the invention provides a head-mounted display device including an optical lens, an image generator, a stop and a waveguide element. The optical lens includes a first lens, a second lens, a third lens, a fourth lens, and a fifth lens sequentially arranged from a light exit side to a light incident side. The image generator is set at the light incident side. The optical lens is configured to receive an image light beam provided by the image generator. The stop is formed at the light exit side. At the stop, the image light beam has a minimum light beam cross-sectional area. The stop is formed at a coupling entrance of the waveguide element)
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the apparatus of Peng’973’ with the specific waveguide for the advantages of a shorter length, smaller volume, lighter weight, larger viewing angle and/or a higher resolution as taught by Kuo for the purpose to shorten an overall length of the optical lens, so as to reduce an appearance volume of the display (Kuo, abstract, paragraphs [0007]-[0008]).
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references or portions of the reference being used in the current rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUEI-JEN LEE EDENFIELD whose telephone number is (571)272-3005. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. -Thurs 8:00 am - 5:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pinping Sun can be reached on (571) 270-1284. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273- 8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published application may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Services Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199(In USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/KUEI-JEN L EDENFIELD/
Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights