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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-8, 10-13, and 16-23 are pending.
Claims 6 and 22 are objected to.
Claims 17, 18, and 23 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 10 of the remarks, filed 14 November 2025, with respect to the previous rejections of independent claims 1, 17, and 19 under 35 USC 102 and/or 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Amirsolaimani et al. (US 2020/0341268) and Daedalus Labs LLC (WO 2022/119679) of record for independent claims 1 and 19.
The previous rejection for claim 17 under 35 USC 103 is withdrawn. No new ground of rejection is made.
The examiner notes that in the interview conducted on 12 November 2025 the examiner agreed that the proposed amendments would overcome the previous rejections under 35 USC 102 and/or 103 and that further search and consideration would be required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 22 are objected to.
Claims 17, 18, and 23 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 6 is 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 for at least the reason that the prior art fails to teach or suggest a curved linear polarizer with an air gap interposed between the curved linear polarizer and the curved reflective polarizer as generally set forth in claim 6, the invention include the totality of the limitations of claims 1 and 3, from which claim 6 depends.
Claim 22 is 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 for at least the reason that the prior art fails to teach or suggest that the first lens element and the second lens element are non-removable lens elements and that the third lens element is a removable lens element as generally set forth in claim 22, the invention include the totality of the limitations of claims 19 and 21, from which claim 22 depends.
Claim 17 is allowable over the cited art of record for at least the reason that the prior art fails to teach or suggest an electronic device wherein the removable lens assembly portion comprises a quarter wave plate and a second lens, as generally set forth in claim 17, the invention including the totality of the particular limitations recited in claim 17.
Claims 18 and 23 are allowable over the cited art of record for at least the reason that they depend from an allowable claim.
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.
The factual inquiries 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 1-5, 7-8, 10-13, 16, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amirsolaimani et al. (US 2020/0341268) (hereafter Amirsolaimani), in view of Daedalus Labs LLC (WO 2022/119679) of record (hereafter Daedalus).
Regarding claim 1, Amirsolaimani discloses an electronic device (see at least Fig. 6A) comprising:
a display panel configured to produce light (see at least Fig. 6A and paragraph [0057], where 150 is the display panel); and
a lens assembly that receives the light from the display panel (see at least Fig. 6A), wherein the lens assembly comprises:
a first curved lens (see at least Fig. 6A and paragraph [0060], where 111 is a first curved lens);
a partially reflective mirror that is interposed between the first curved lens and the display panel (see at least Fig. 6A and paragraphs [0045] and [0061], where 113 is a partially reflective mirror);
a curved reflective polarizer that is on the viewing side of the first curved lens (see at least Fig. 6A and paragraph [0061], where 115 is a curved reflective polarizer); and
a planar quarter wave plate that is on the viewing side of the reflective polarizer (see at least Fig. 6A and paragraph [0055], where 122 is a planar quarter wave plate).
Amirsolaimani does not specifically disclose a second curved lens, wherein the second curved lens is a removable lens that is configured to be selectively attached to the lens assembly and that the planar quarter wave plate is interposed between the curved reflective polarizer and the second curved lens when the second curved lens is attached to the lens assembly.
However, Daedalus teaches a head-mounted optical device (see at least the abstract), wherein vision correction lenses may be removably coupled to fixed lenses of an optical module (see at least the abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Amirsolaimani to include the teachings of Daedalus so that the device includes a second curved lens that is a removable lens that is configured to be selectively attached to the lens assembly such that the planar quarter wave plate is interposed between the curved reflective polarizer and the second curved lens when the second curved lens is attached to the lens assembly for the purpose of adding an additional lens to the viewing side of the device in order to customize the device to the vision of a particular user (see at least the abstract of Daedalus).
Regarding claim 2, Amirsolaimani as modified by Daedalus discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Amirsolaimani also discloses that the planar quarter wave plate is a first quarter wave plate and wherein the lens assembly further comprises a second quarter wave plate that is interposed between the first curved lens and the curved reflective polarizer, wherein the second quarter wave plate is a curved quarter wave plate (see at least Fig. 6A and paragraph [0046], where 114 is a second quarter wave plate).
Regarding claim 3, Amirsolaimani as modified by Daedalus discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Amirsolaimani also discloses that the lens assembly further comprises a linear polarizer that is interposed between the curved reflective polarizer and the planar quarter wave plate (see at least Fig. 6A and paragraph [0049], where 121 is a linear polarizer).
Regarding claim 4, Amirsolaimani as modified by Daedalus discloses all of the limitations of claim 3.
Amirsolaimani also discloses that the lens assembly comprises a fixed lens assembly portion that comprises the first curved lens, the partially reflective mirror, the curved reflective polarizer, the planar quarter wave plate, and the linear polarizer (see at least Fig. 6A and paragraph [0060], where the anti-narcissus film 120, which includes the planar quarter wave plate 122 and the linear polarizer 121, can be a part of the pancake lens 610).
Regarding claim 5, Amirsolaimani as modified by Daedalus discloses all of the limitations of claim 3.
Amirsolaimani also discloses that the linear polarizer is a planar linear polarizer and wherein the planar quarter wave plate is attached to and conforms to the planar linear polarizer (see at least Fig. 6A).
Regarding claim 7, Amirsolaimani as modified by Daedalus discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Amirsolaimani also discloses that the lens assembly comprises a fixed lens assembly portion that comprises the first curved lens, the partially reflective mirror, the curved reflective polarizer, and the planar quarter wave plate (see at least Fig. 6A and paragraph [0060], where the anti-narcissus film 120, which includes the planar quarter wave plate 122, can be a part of the pancake lens 610).
Regarding claim 8, Amirsolaimani as modified by Daedalus discloses all of the limitations of claim 7.
Amirsolaimani also discloses that the fixed lens assembly portion has first and second opposing surfaces, wherein the first surface is a curved surface, and wherein the second surface is a planar surface (see at least Fig. 6A, where the lens assembly has a curved surface on the display side and the quarter wave plate has a planar surface on the viewing side).
Regarding claims 10-12, Amirsolaimani as modified by Daedalus discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Amirsolaimani as modified by Daedalus does not specifically disclose an antireflection layer on the planar quarter wave plate, wherein the anti-reflection layer is interposed between the curved reflective polarizer and the planar quarter wave plate or between the planar quarter wave plate and the second curved lens when the second curved lens is attached to the lens assembly.
However, Amirsolaimani also discloses that the optical elements within the device can include one or more coatings such as an anti-reflective coating (see at least paragraph [0070]).
Further, the planar quarter wave plate only has two sides on which an anti-reflective coating can be formed. It therefore would have been obvious to try forming the anti-reflective coating on either or both surfaces of the planar quarter wave plate in order to obtain predictable results such as the reduction of unwanted reflections from both inside and outside the device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Amirsolaimani as modified by Daedalus to include the further teachings of Amirsolaimani so that the device comprises an antireflection layer on the planar quarter wave plate, wherein the anti-reflection layer is interposed between the curved reflective polarizer and the planar quarter wave plate or between the planar quarter wave plate and the second curved lens when the second curved lens is attached to the lens assembly for the purpose of reducing unwanted reflections within the device.
Regarding claim 13, Amirsolaimani as modified by Daedalus discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Daedalus also teaches that the lens assembly comprises a removable lens assembly portion that includes the second curved lens (see at least the abstract, Fig. 1, and paragraph [0025], where the second curves lens is part of a vision correction lens module 54).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Amirsolaimani as modified by Daedalus to include the further teachings of Daedalus so that the lens assembly comprises a removable lens assembly portion that includes the second curved lens for the purpose of being able to easily swap vision correction lenses (see at least paragraph [0025] of Daedalus).
Regarding claim 16, Amirsolaimani as modified by Daedalus discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Daedalus also teaches that vision correction lens modules may each have one or more vision correction lens elements (see at least paragraph [0025]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Amirsolaimani as modified by Daedalus to include the further teachings of Daedalus so that the lens assembly further comprises a third lens that is interposed between the planar quarter wave plate and the second curved lens when the second curved lens is attached to the lens assembly for the purpose of having more than one vision correction lens elements to achieve the desired vision correction (see at least paragraph [0025] of Daedalus).
Regarding claim 19, Amirsolaimani discloses an electronic device (see at least Fig. 6A) comprising:
a display panel (see at least Fig. 6A and paragraph [0057], where 150 is the display panel);
a first lens element (see at least Fig. 6A and paragraph [0060], where 111 is a first lens element);
a partially reflective mirror that is interposed between the first lens element and the display panel (see at least Fig. 6A and paragraphs [0045] and [0061], where 113 is a partially reflective mirror);
a first quarter wave plate (see at least Fig. 6A and paragraph [0046], where 114 is a first quarter wave plate)
a reflective polarizer, wherein the first quarter wave plate is interposed between the first lens element and the reflective polarizer (see at least Fig. 6A and paragraph [0061], where 115 is a reflective polarizer); and
a second quarter wave plate that is on the viewing side of the reflective polarizer (see at least Fig. 6A and paragraph [0055], where 122 is a second quarter wave plate).
Amirsolaimani does not specifically disclose a second lens element, wherein the second quarter wave plate is interposed between the reflective polarizer and the second lens element.
However, Daedalus teaches a head-mounted optical device (see at least the abstract), wherein vision correction lenses may be removably coupled to fixed lenses of an optical module (see at least the abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Amirsolaimani to include the teachings of Daedalus so that the device includes a second lens element, wherein the second quarter wave plate is interposed between the reflective polarizer and the second lens element for the purpose of adding an additional lens to the viewing side of the device in order to customize the device to the vision of a particular user (see at least the abstract of Daedalus).
Regarding claim 20, Amirsolaimani as modified by Daedalus discloses all of the limitations of claim 19.
Amirsolaimani also discloses that the device further comprises a linear polarizer that is interposed between the reflective polarizer and the second quarter wave plate (see at least Fig. 6A and paragraph [0049], where 121 is a linear polarizer).
Regarding claim 21, Amirsolaimani as modified by Daedalus discloses all of the limitations of claim 19.
Daedalus also teaches that vision correction lens modules may each have one or more vision correction lens elements (see at least paragraph [0025]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Amirsolaimani as modified by Daedalus to include the further teachings of Daedalus so that the lens assembly further comprises a third lens element adjacent to the second lens element for the purpose of having more than one vision correction lens elements to achieve the desired vision correction (see at least paragraph [0025] of Daedalus).
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 ADAM W BOOHER whose telephone number is (571)270-0573. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/A.W.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872