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.
Disposition of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 18-20 were withdrawn from consideration without traverse.
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.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schuster (US 20050219707 A1, of record).
Regarding claim 1, Schuster teaches an apparatus (Figs. 2-6, ¶67-69) comprising:
a first rigid lens (L14, made of quartz glass per ¶69);
a second rigid lens (L15, made of quartz glass per ¶69);
a seal (38) that couples the first rigid lens and the second rigid lens together (Fig. 4), wherein the first rigid lens, the second rigid lens, and the seal define a cavity (36); and
a fluid within the cavity (water per ¶69), wherein the seal is adapted to admit expansion of the fluid within the cavity (¶67, the seal is elastic).
Regarding claim 5, Schuster teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and further discloses further comprising a reservoir (62, 64), wherein the seal (38) is adapted to allow fluid to pass through at least a portion of the seal to the reservoir (Fig. 4).
Claims 1, 4, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pedder ‘716 (WO 2020060716 A1, of record).
Regarding claim 1, Pedder ‘716 teaches an apparatus (Figs. 4A) comprising:
a first rigid lens (104);
a second rigid lens (102);
a seal (Fig. 4A vs. 4B, clearly the cavity 112 is sealed else the fluid control component 108, which exerts a force against a membrane to change the amount of fluid per ¶69 and therefore pressurizes the fluid, would cause the fluid to leak and render the device inoperable; ¶110 provides evidence that the fluid filled cavity is sealed by the membrane itself) that couples the first rigid lens and the second rigid lens together (Fig. 4A, ¶70, the lenses work are biased either by fixing of 104 or biasing of 102 to achieve the desired width of the cavity 112 when the fluid volume is controlled to change the width, i.e. the first lens, second lens, and seal are coupled together during operation), wherein the first rigid lens, the second rigid lens, and the seal define a cavity (112); and
a fluid (109) within the cavity (Fig. 4A), wherein the seal is adapted to admit expansion of the fluid within the cavity (Figs. 4A vs. 4B showing the difference in fluid expansion).
Regarding claim 4, Pedder ‘716 teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the seal comprises an elastic material (¶70).
Regarding claim 10, Pedder ‘716 teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and further discloses further comprising:
a reflective polarizer (¶64, “reflective polarizer 92”); and
a partial reflector (82, ¶40, “Displays in device 10 such as display 14 may be … liquid crystal displays, liquid-crystal-on-silicon displays …”, and ¶64, “In general, lens 72 module may have any desired optical structures (e.g., partially reflective coatings, … reflective polarizers ... “) at any desired locations within the lens module.”).
Regarding claim 11, Pedder ‘716 teaches the apparatus of claim 10, and further discloses wherein the reflective polarizer (92) is adjacent to at least one of the first lens and the second lens (Fig. 4A).
Regarding claim 12, Pedder ‘716 teaches the apparatus of claim 10, and further discloses wherein the partial reflector is adjacent to at least one of the first lens and the second lens (¶64, Fig. 4A).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedder ‘716 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pedder ‘776 (US 20240027776 A1, effectively filed 4/14/2021).
Regarding claim 2, Pedder ‘716 teaches the apparatus of claim 1, but does not explicitly show wherein the seal comprises a same material of at least one of:
the first rigid lens; or
the second rigid lens.
Pedder ‘776 explicitly shows an analogous fluid filled lens (Abstract) wherein the seal comprises a same material of at least one of: the first rigid lens; or the second rigid lens (¶70, ¶74).
It has been held that selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2144.07. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the same material as that of the lens in order to provide the seal of Pedder ‘716 since it is known to be suitable for achieving a flexible seal with high expectation of success from Pedder ‘776.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedder ‘716 as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Pedder ‘776 (US 20240027776 A1, effectively filed 4/14/2021), further in view of Lours (EP 1939150 A1, publicly available 7/02/2008).
Regarding claim 3, Pedder ‘716 teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and explicitly shows the rigid lens may be formed of sapphire (¶71), but does not explicitly show wherein the seal has a higher coefficient of thermal expansion than at least one of:
the first rigid lens; or
the second rigid lens.
Pedder ‘776 explicitly shows an analogous fluid filled lens (Abstract) wherein the seal comprises a different, more elastic material of at least one of: the first rigid lens; or the second rigid lens (¶70).
It has been held that selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2144.07. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the different, more elastic material than that of the lens in order to provide the seal of Pedder ‘716 since it is known to be suitable for achieving a flexible seal with high expectation of success from Pedder ‘776.
The modified Pedder ‘716 demonstrates the use of a crystalline sapphire lens with an elastic seal, but does not explicitly show that the elastic material has a greater coefficient of thermal expansion than the crystalline sapphire.
Lours explicitly shows that it is desirable to seal a liquid-based optical device, e.g. one similar to that of the modified Pedder ‘716, with a process leading to “soft” visco-elastic materials in order to accommodate thermo-mechanical stress due to the difference of thermal coefficient of expansion of the various materials of the assembly (¶39; see also ¶7, ¶22, allowing for deformation of the seal without deformation of the optic), considered to disclose that the material should have a higher thermal coefficient of expansion than that of the optical materials.
Again, it has been held that selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2144.07. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have followed the teachings of Lours when implementing the device of the modified Pedder ‘716 and used an elastic material having a greater coefficient of thermal expansion than that of the sapphire lens.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuster as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bram (JP 2021515280 A, publicly available 6/17/2021).
Regarding claim 6 and 7, Schuster teaches the apparatus of claim 1, but does not explicitly show wherein the seal comprises two layers, or wherein the two layers differ from each other in material composition.
Bram explicitly shows an analogous optical module including a near eye display (“A near-eye display and a microlens array spaced apart from one or more pixels (or pixel patches) of the near-eye display and positioned optically aligned with these pixels”) and liquid lens microarray (“Microlenses in a microlens array are merely examples … liquid lens”) wherein the seal comprises two layers, or wherein the two layers differ from each other in material composition (“Sealing is, by way of example, … a multi-layer coating can be applied to the transparent near-eye optical module as needed to provide an airtight seal. Such a coating can be, by way of example only, an encapsulant such as a multilayer in which Paralym-C and SiOx are alternately deposited.”).
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 multilayer multimaterial coating of Bram to seal the device of Schuster thus predictably sealing the cavity.
Claims 6, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuster.
Regarding claim 6, Schuster teaches the apparatus of claim 1, but does not explicitly show wherein the seal comprises two layers.
However, a duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04 VI. B. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have duplicated the seal into two layers and achieved the same, predictable effect of sealing.
Regarding claim 8 and 9, the modified Schuster teaches the apparatus of claim 6, but does not explicitly show wherein the seal curves inward or away from a common plane defined by the first lens and the second lens.
However, mere changes in shape amount to design choices by one of ordinary skill in the art in the absence of persuasive evidence that the claimed shape is significant. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. B. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have varied the shape of Schuster’s seal in accordance with design needs, e.g. to accommodate variations in pressure due to change in fluid volume intrinsic to the operation of Schuster’s liquid lens.
Claims 6, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedder ‘716.
Regarding claim 6, Pedders ‘716 teaches the apparatus of claim 1, but does not explicitly show wherein the seal comprises two layers.
However, a duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04 VI. B. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have duplicated the seal into two layers and achieved the same, predictable effect of sealing.
Regarding claim 8 and 9, the modified Pedder ‘716 teaches the apparatus of claim 6, but does not explicitly show wherein the seal curves inward or away from a common plane defined by the first lens and the second lens.
However, mere changes in shape amount to design choices by one of ordinary skill in the art in the absence of persuasive evidence that the claimed shape is significant. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. B. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have varied the shape of Pedder ‘716’s seal in accordance with design needs, e.g. to accommodate variations in pressure due to change in fluid volume intrinsic to the operation of Pedder ‘716’s liquid lens.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedder ‘716 as applied to claim 10 above.
Regarding claim 13, Pedder ‘716 teaches the apparatus of claim 10, and explicitly shows in general, lens 72 module may have any desired optical structures (e.g., partially reflective coatings, wave plates, reflective polarizers, linear polarizers, antireflection coatings, etc.) at any desired locations within the lens module” (¶64), but does not explicitly show wherein the reflective polarizer is between the first lens and the fluid.
In view of MPEP 2144.04 VI. C., and rearrangement or additional provision of the reflective polarizer being expressly contemplated by Pedder ‘716 as cited above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have positioned the reflective polarizer between the first lens and the fluid toward achieving the desired optical propagation.
Regarding claim 14, Pedder ‘716 teaches the apparatus of claim 10, and explicitly shows in general, lens 72 module may have any desired optical structures (e.g., partially reflective coatings, wave plates, reflective polarizers, linear polarizers, antireflection coatings, etc.) at any desired locations within the lens module” (¶64), but does not explicitly show wherein the partial reflector is between the second lens and the fluid.
In view of MPEP 2144.04 VI. C., and rearrangement or additional provision of the reflective polarizer being expressly contemplated by Pedder ‘716 as cited above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have positioned the reflective polarizer between the second lens and the fluid toward achieving the desired optical propagation.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedder ‘716 as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Gross (Handbook of Optical Materials: Principle of Optimization).1
Regarding claim 15, Pedder ‘716 teaches the apparatus of claim 10, but does not explicitly show wherein the first lens: has a diameter of greater than about 25 millimeters; and has an average thickness of less than about 2 millimeters.
Gross explicitly shows that thickness of lenses is a known optimization parameter toward fine tuning optical systems (p. 347, 32.6.4), and 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).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have finely tuned the optical system of Pedder ‘716 by optimizing the thickness of the lenses toward correcting optical aberration and thus achieved the claimed thicknesses.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedder ‘716 as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Ye (US 20220105696 A1, publicly available 4/7/2022).
Regarding claim 16 and 17, Pedder ‘716 teaches the apparatus of claim 10, but does not explicitly show wherein the reflective polarizer comprises a multilayer reflective polarizer, wherein the reflective polarizer has a thickness of less than about 50 microns.
Ye explicitly shows a pancake optical system (¶11, “Reflective polarizers may be used … in pancake optical systems … within display systems that use polarized light. For orthogonally polarized light, pancake lenses may use reflective polarizers with extremely high contrast ratios for transmitted light, reflected light, or both transmitted and reflected light”), i.e. analogous with that of the polarization splitting device of Pedder ‘716 (discussed in ¶64), and a reflective multilayer polarizer therefor (¶44-46; see ¶23 for thickness values, which are all less than 50 microns).
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 multilayer reflective polarizer of Ye to implement the polarization splitting of Pedder ‘716 and thus achieved high contrast and brightness enhancement (Ye, ¶11).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLLIN X BEATTY whose telephone number is (571)270-1255. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 10am - 6pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Pham can be reached on 5712723689. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/COLLIN X BEATTY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
1 Herbert Gross. Handbook of Optical Systems, Volume 3: Aberration Theory and Correction of Optical Systems. © 2007 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim.