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 the amendment filed 12/11/2025.
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.
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 1-5, 7-8 and10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IBA. (US20230359033) in view of Ouderkirk et al. (US9557568) and Ouderkirk et al. (US20190271848, hereafter called Ouderkirk’848’).
.
Regarding claim 1, IBA teaches an optical system comprising (IBA, figs.1-16, abstract, a look-in type wide-field video display apparatus includes an ocular optical system), from an anterior side (IBA, fig.1, display device D side, display surface S5) to a posterior side (IBA fig.1, user's eye side, pupil plane S0):
an image surface (IBA, fig.1, display surface S5), having a circular polarizer (IBA, fig.1, paragraph [0037], circular polarizing plate CP) attached to a posterior side of the image surface (IBA, fig.1, surface S5 of display device D) to emit light (paragraph [0043], light emitted from the video display surface S5 of the display device D);
a second lens (IBA, fig.1, lens L2), provided with a partially-reflective element (IBA, fig.1, paragraph [0040] half mirror HM) on an anterior-side surface of the second lens (IBA, fig.1, lens L2);
a first lens (IBA, fig.1, lens L1), provided with a lamination film on an anterior-side surface or a posterior-side surface of the first lens (fig.1, paragraph [0038], on the surface S2, a reflection polarizing plate, reflective polarizing film, RP and a ¼-wavelength plate, (¼-wavelength film, QWP are laminated), the lamination film comprising a reflective polarizing film (fig.1, paragraph [0038], reflective polarizing film, RP) and a quarter waveplate (fig.1, ¼-wavelength film, QWP), and the reflective polarizing film (fig.1, the RP) provided at a posterior side of the quarter waveplate (fig.1, the QWP); and
an aperture (fig.1, paragraph [0058], ED also represents a diameter of a circle circumscribed by a region in which the beam of the video projected into the eye (pupil) of the user passes through the second lens L2 ; paragraph [0053], the pupil plane S0 is an assumed position of the eye, pupil, of the user), located at the posterior side of the optical system (fig.1, the optical system); and
the optical system further satisfying following conditions:
SDmax≤25.5 mm (22.5mm; IBA, fig.5, the data, serial number 13, SDmax = 45/2 = 22.5 mm);
SDmax denotes a maximum effective radius of each lens in the optical system (IBA, fig.1, fig.5, paragraph [0136], FIG. 5 shows the type of the surface corresponding to each serial number; the curvature radius around the optical axis A, ,..effective diameter).
IBA does not explicitly teaches wherein the optical system further satisfying following conditions: VD≥12 mm; DIST≤35%;
where VD denotes a maximum visible diameter of the optical system;
where DIST denotes an optical distortion of the optical system.
However, Ouderkirk teaches the analogous optical system (Ouderkirk, figs.1-2, abstract, The first optical stack includes a first optical lens and a partial reflector. The second optical stack includes a second optical lens, a multilayer reflective polarizer and a first quarter wave retarder disposed between the multilayer reflective polarizer and the first optical stack. The multilayer reflective polarizer may be convex toward the image surface along orthogonal first and second axes. col.11, line 30, surface 116 ..be disposed on the partial reflector), and further teaches
wherein the optical system (Ouderkirk, fig.1) further satisfying following conditions: VD≥12 mm (15mm; Ouderkirk, fig.2, col.42, lines 6-7, eye box, diameter of the stop surface 235) was 15 mm);
DIST≤35% (10%; Ouderkirk, col.2, lines 18-19, that a distortion of the emitted undistorted image transmitted by the exit pupil is less than about 10%);
where VD denotes a maximum visible diameter (Ouderkirk, fig.2, a maximum visible diameter has been referred as eye box, diameter of the stop surface 235) of the optical system (Ouderkirk, fig.1).
where DIST denotes an optical distortion of the optical system (Ouderkirk, col.2, lines 18-19, that a distortion of the emitted undistorted image transmitted by the exit pupil is less than about 10%).
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 IBA to have the specific range as taught by Ouderkirk for the purpose to provide a system having a high field of view, a high contrast, a low chromatic aberration, a low distortion, and/or a high efficiency in a compact configuration that is useful in various devices including head-mounted displays (Ouderkirk, col.7, lines 54-60).
IBA does not explicitly teaches wherein the reflective polarizing film has a reflective rate greater than or equal to 95%.
However, Ouderkirk’848’ teaches the analogous optical system (Ouderkirk’848’, figs.1-9, abstract, a near-eye display system or the like transmits enough light so a user can see remote objects in a “world view”, while also reflecting enough light so the user can simultaneously see a projected image in a “projected”, augmented, view), and further teaches wherein the reflective polarizing film has a reflective rate greater than or equal to 95% (99%; Ouderkirk’848’, paragraph [0014] In either case, the reflective polarizer may have a reflectivity for at least some light in a block state of polarization ..or over 99%.).
Since it has been held that where the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is disclosed in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.07, citing In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988). See also Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 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 IBA of optical system with Ouderkirk’848’ of specific material to play a significant role not only in the optical performance but also the aesthetics and the weight of the display system (Ouderkirk’848’, paragraph [0004]).
Regarding claim 2, combination IBA-Ouderkirk-Ouderkirk’848’ discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and IBA further teaches wherein at least one of the anterior-side surface and the posterior-side surface of the first lens (IBA, fig.1, surface S1 of lens L1) is an aspherical surface (IBA, fig.1, paragraph [0128], The first surface S1 of the first lens L1 and the third surface S3 of the second lens L2 are aspherical surfaces).
Regarding claim 3, combination IBA-Ouderkirk-Ouderkirk’848’ discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and IBA further teaches wherein both an anterior-side surface (IBA, fig.1, S4) and a posterior-side surface (IBA, fig.1, S3) of the second lens (IBA, fig.1, lens L2) are aspherical surfaces (see IBA, fig.5, data of table, surfaces S3 and S4 are aspherical surfaces).
Regarding claim 4, combination IBA-Ouderkirk-Ouderkirk’848’ discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and Ouderkirk further teaches wherein satisfying following condition:
90°≤FOV≤110° ( 90°; Ouderkirk, col.42, lines 2-4the field of view was 90 degrees; col.17, lines 28-30, the field of view.. greater than , 90 degrees, );
Where FOV denotes a field of view of the optical system (col.42, lines 2-4the field of view was 90 degrees).
The motivation to combine IBA and Ouderkirk as provided in claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 5, combination IBA-Ouderkirk-Ouderkirk’848’ discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and IBA further teaches wherein the partially-reflective element is a transflective film ((IBA, fig.1, paragraph [0039], semi-transmissive mirror, HM).), having both a transmissive rate of 50% and a reflective rate of 50% (see IBA, fig.1, paragraph [0039], semi-transmissive mirror, HM, so HM having both a transmissive rate of 50% and a reflective rate of 50%).
Regarding claim 7, combination IBA-Ouderkirk-Ouderkirk’848’ discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and IBA further teaches wherein satisfying following condition:
TTL≤30 mm (16.285; IBA, fig.5, data of table for fig.1, TTL = 16.285);
Where TTL denotes an on-axis (IBA, fig.1, on-axis A) distance from the image surface (IBA, fig.1, S5) to the posterior-side surface of the first lens (IBA, fig.1, S1).
Regarding claim 8, combination IBA-Ouderkirk-Ouderkirk’848’ discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and IBA further teaches wherein satisfying following condition:
TTL/f≤1.05 (1.016; IBA, fig.1, paragraph [0141], f = EFL = 1/P0: 0.0624 = 16.026, paragraph [0056], The power P0 (unit: 1/mm) of the ocular optical system OC; fig.5, data of table for fig.1, TTL = 16.285); where
TTL denotes an on-axis (IBA, fig.1, on-axis A) distance from the image surface (IBA, fig.1, S5) to the posterior-side surface of the first lens (IBA, fig.1, S1), and f denotes a focal length of the optical system (paragraph [0109], EFL represents a focal length of the ocular optical system OC).
Regarding claim 10, combination IBA-Ouderkirk-Ouderkirk’848’ discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and Ouderkirk further teaches wherein the image surface (Ouderkirk, fig.2, the image surface has been referred as the image surface 230) is a display having a diagonal size of 2.1 inches ( 2.2 inches; Ouderkirk, col.42, lines 3-4, the image height was 27.14 mm, the diameter of the image surface 230 was 54.28 mm = 2.2 inches ---which is very close to the value of 2.1 inches; the claimed ranges and the prior art ranges are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, See MPEP 2144.05(I);Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Nabber, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). 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 IBA with the specific range as taught by Ouderkirk for the purpose to provide a system having a high field of view, a high contrast, a low chromatic aberration, a low distortion, and/or a high efficiency in a compact configuration that is useful in various devices including head-mounted displays (Ouderkirk, col.7, lines 54-60). The motivation to combine IBA and Ouderkirk as provided in claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered, see Remarks Page. 4-8 with respect to the 35 U.S.C.& 103 rejection have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
In the remarks, applicant argues that:
Neither IBA, Ouderkirk nor Ouderkirk848 discloses all the distinguishing technical features, nor can they be combined.
In response to applicant's argument(s) of 1
The test for obviousness is not whether the features may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Additionally, “[t]he word ‘comprising’ transitioning from the preamble to the body signals that the entire claim is presumptively open-ended. In this case, IBA, Ouderkirk and Ouderkirk’848’ disclose related embodiments having similar optical system and function described in claim 1; combination IBA-Ouderkirk-Ouderkirk’848’ teaches all of structure of claim 1; the motivation to combine IBA, Ouderkirk and Ouderkirk’848’ as provided in claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Examiner's Note
Regarding the references, the Examiner cites particular figures, paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the reference(s), as applied to the claims above. Although the particular citations are representative teachings and are applied to specific limitations within the claims, other passages, internally cited references, and figures may also apply. In preparing a response, it is respectfully requested that the Applicant fully consider the references, in their entirety, as potentially disclosing or teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as fully consider the context of the passage as taught by the reference(s) or as disclosed by the Examiner.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 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, Thomas Pham can be reached on 571-272-3689. 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
/THOMAS K PHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872