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 .
The instant application having Application No. 18/335,033 filed on 6/14/2023 is presented for examination by the examiner.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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 1-6, 9, 15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Etter (US 20200081234 A1) in view of Ouderkirk (US 9557568 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Etter discloses an optical system in at least Figure 1A, comprising:
first lens (see examiner's markup of Figure 1A) including a first optically transparent member (20 "second optical lens", Figure 1A) having a first surface (22 "second major surface"), a second surface (21 "first major surface"); a second lens (see examiner's markup of Figure 1A) including a second optically transparent member (10 "first optical lens", Figure 1A) having a third surface (12 "second major surface") and a fourth surface (11 "first major surface");
an optical cavity (see examiner's markup of Figure 1A) comprising a beam splitter (30 "partial reflector", Figure 1A), a reflective polarizer (40 "reflective polarizer", Figure 1A), a waveplate (50 "first retarder", Figure 1A), and at least one of the said lens (see examiner's markup of Figure 1A), wherein the said waveplate (50 "first retarder") and the said optically transparent member (10 "first optical lens") of the said lens (see examiner's markup of Figure 1A) are positioned between the said beam splitter (30 "partial reflector") and the said reflective polarizer (40 "reflective polarizer", Figure 1A) and wherein the said beam splitter (30 "partial reflector"), the reflective polarizer (40 "reflective polarizer"), and waveplate (50 "first retarder") are disposed on and substantially conforming to the surfaces (22 "second major surface", 21 "first major surface", 12 "second major surface", 11 "first major surface") selected from the said surfaces (Figure 1A).
Below is an examiner’s markup of Figure 1A of Etter pointing out a first lens, a second lens, an and an optical cavity.
PNG
media_image1.png
908
1122
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Etter does not disclose wherein the said beam splitter includes a first field region having a first reflectance, and a second field region having a second reflectance and wherein the said second reflectance is at least ten percent higher than the said first reflectance.
Ouderkirk teaches wherein the said beam splitter includes a first field region (see examiner’s first markup of Figure 18) having a first reflectance, and a second field region (see examiner’s first markup of Figure 18) having a second reflectance.
Below is an examiner’s first markup of Figure 18 of Ouderkirk pointing out a first field region and a second field region.
PNG
media_image2.png
779
886
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the optical system of Etter modified by wherein the said beam splitter includes a first field region having a first reflectance, and a second field region having a second reflectance, as taught by Ouderkirk, in order to increase efficiency in a compact configuration (column 7, lines 49-60).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Etter and Ouderkirk discloses all the limitations of claim 1, however Etter does not disclose wherein the said field region is configured as an area along a radial direction from a center to an edge of the said first lens; the said first field region is configured as an area near the center of the first lens, and the said second field region is configured as an area near the edge of the first lens.
Ouderkirk teaches wherein the said field region is configured as an area along a radial direction from a center to an edge of the said first lens (see examiner’s first markup of Figure 18); the said first field region (see examiner’s first markup of Figure 18) is configured as an area near the center of the first lens (see examiner’s first markup of Figure 18), and the said second field region (see examiner’s first markup of Figure 18) is configured as an area near the edge of the first lens (see examiner’s first markup of Figure 18).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the optical system of Etter modified by wherein the said field region is configured as an area along a radial direction from a center to an edge of the said first lens; the said first field region is configured as an area near the center of the first lens, and the said second field region is configured as an area near the edge of the first lens, as taught by Ouderkirk, in order to increase efficiency in a compact configuration (column 7, lines 49-60).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Etter and Ouderkirk discloses all the limitations of claim 2, however Etter does not disclose wherein the said first field region is configured as an area inside a 20-mm radius of the first lens center; the said second field region is configured as an area outside a 20-mm radius of the first lens center.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to define a first field region as an area inside a 20-mm radius of the first lens center and to define a second field region as an area outside a 20-mm radius of the first lens center, since such a modification would involve only a mere change in size of a component. Scaling up or down of an element which merely requires a change in size is generally considered as being within the ordinary skill in the art. In re Rinehart, 189 USPQ 143 (CCAP 1976).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Etter and Ouderkirk discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and Etter further discloses wherein the said beam splitter (30 "partial reflector") is configured to partially transmit and partially reflect light beams (paragraph 0044 states "the partial reflector has an average optical reflectance and an average optical transmittance at a predetermined wavelength or in a predetermined wavelength range that are each in a range of 20% to 80%, or each in a range of 30% to 70%, or each in a range of 40% to 60%, or each in a range of 45% to 55%. The partial reflector may be a half mirror, for example. The average optical reflectance and average optical transmittance in a predetermined wavelength range refer to the unweighted average over the predetermined wavelength range and over polarizations of the optical reflectance and optical transmittance, respectively, determined at normal incidence unless indicated otherwise") from a display device (55 "imager", Figure 1A) in a predetermined wavelength range (paragraph 0043 states "the partial reflector 30 has an average optical reflectance of at least 30% in a predetermined wavelength range"); the said reflective polarizer (40 "reflective polarizer") is configured to pass through light having a first polarization state (paragraph 0045 states “The reflective polarizer 40 substantially reflects light having one of orthogonal first and second polarization states (e.g., a first polarization state with the electric field along the x-axis) and substantially transmits light having the other of the first and second polarization states (e.g., a second polarization state with the electric field along the y-axis) in the predetermined wavelength range”) and reflect light having a second polarization state in a predetermined wavelength range (paragraph 0045 states “The reflective polarizer 40 substantially reflects light having one of orthogonal first and second polarization states (e.g., a first polarization state with the electric field along the x-axis) and substantially transmits light having the other of the first and second polarization states (e.g., a second polarization state with the electric field along the y-axis) in the predetermined wavelength range”); the said waveplate (50 "first retarder") is configured to modify the polarization state of transmitted light in a predetermined wavelength range (paragraph 0047 states “The first retarder layer 50 can be substantially a quarter wave retarder at at least one wavelength in the predetermined wavelength range”).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Etter and Ouderkirk discloses all the limitations of claim 1, however Etter does not disclose wherein the said beam splitter does not have a uniform reflectance within the said field region.
Ouderkirk teaches wherein the said beam splitter does not have a uniform reflectance within the said field region (Figure 18 shows light paths which are not uniform).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the optical system of Etter modified by wherein the said beam splitter does not have a uniform reflectance within the said field region, as taught by Ouderkirk, in order to increase efficiency in a compact configuration (column 7, lines 49-60).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Etter and Ouderkirk discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and Etter further discloses wherein the said beam splitter (30 "partial reflector") is an optical thin film coating (paragraph 0044 states "The partial reflector used in the optical systems of the present description may be any suitable partial reflector. For example, the partial reflector may be constructed by coating a thin layer of a metal (e.g., silver or aluminum) on a transparent substrate (e.g., a film which may then be adhered to a lens, or the substrate may be a lens). The partial reflector may also be formed by depositing thin-film dielectric coatings onto a surface of a lens substrate, or by depositing a combination of metallic and dielectric coatings on the surface, for example").
Regarding claim 9, Etter discloses an optical system, in at least Figure 1A, comprising:
first lens (see examiner's markup of Figure 1A) including a first optically transparent member (20 "second optical lens", Figure 1A) having a first surface (22 "second major surface"), a second surface (21 "first major surface"); a second lens (see examiner's markup of Figure 1A) including a second optically transparent member (10 "first optical lens", Figure 1A) having a third surface (12 "second major surface") and a fourth surface (11 "first major surface");
an optical cavity (see examiner's markup of Figure 1A) comprising a beam splitter (30 "partial reflector", Figure 1A), a reflective polarizer (40 "reflective polarizer", Figure 1A), a waveplate (50 "first retarder", Figure 1A), and at least one of the said lens (see examiner's markup of Figure 1A), wherein the said waveplate (50 "first retarder") and the said optically transparent member (10 "first optical lens") of the said lens (see examiner's markup of Figure 1A) are positioned between the said beam splitter (30 "partial reflector") and the said reflective polarizer (40 "reflective polarizer", Figure 1A), wherein the said beam splitter (30 "partial reflector"), the reflective polarizer (40 "reflective polarizer"), and waveplate (50 "first retarder") are disposed on and substantially conforming to the surfaces selected from the said surfaces (Figure 1A).
However, Etter does not disclose wherein the said beam splitter includes a first beam splitter area having a first reflectance and a first transmittance, and a second beam splitter area having a second reflectance and a second transmittance and wherein the said first transmittance is at least ten percent higher than the said second transmittance.
Ouderkirk teaches wherein the said beam splitter includes a first beam splitter area (see examiner’s second markup of Figure 18) having a first reflectance and a first transmittance, and a first beam splitter area (see examiner’s second markup of Figure 18) having a second reflectance and a second transmittance.
Below is an examiner’s second markup of Figure 18 of Ouderkirk pointing out a first beam splitter area and a first beam splitter area.
PNG
media_image3.png
779
886
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the optical system of Etter modified by wherein the said beam splitter includes a first beam splitter area having a first reflectance and a first transmittance, and a second beam splitter area having a second reflectance and a second transmittance, as taught by Ouderkirk, in order to increase efficiency in a compact configuration (column 7, lines 49-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize a beam splitter such that the said first transmittance is at least ten percent higher than the said second transmittance, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Antonie 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); In re Boesch 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Etter and Ouderkirk discloses all the limitations of claim 9 and Etter further discloses wherein the said beam splitter (30 "partial reflector") is configured to partially transmit and partially reflect light beams (paragraph 0044 states "the partial reflector has an average optical reflectance and an average optical transmittance at a predetermined wavelength or in a predetermined wavelength range that are each in a range of 20% to 80%, or each in a range of 30% to 70%, or each in a range of 40% to 60%, or each in a range of 45% to 55%. The partial reflector may be a half mirror, for example. The average optical reflectance and average optical transmittance in a predetermined wavelength range refer to the unweighted average over the predetermined wavelength range and over polarizations of the optical reflectance and optical transmittance, respectively, determined at normal incidence unless indicated otherwise") from a display device (55 "imager", Figure 1A) in a predetermined wavelength range (paragraph 0043 states "the partial reflector 30 has an average optical reflectance of at least 30% in a predetermined wavelength range"); the said reflective polarizer (40 "reflective polarizer") is configured to pass through light having a first polarization state (paragraph 0045 states “The reflective polarizer 40 substantially reflects light having one of orthogonal first and second polarization states (e.g., a first polarization state with the electric field along the x-axis) and substantially transmits light having the other of the first and second polarization states (e.g., a second polarization state with the electric field along the y-axis) in the predetermined wavelength range”) and reflect light having a second polarization state in a predetermined wavelength range (paragraph 0045 states “The reflective polarizer 40 substantially reflects light having one of orthogonal first and second polarization states (e.g., a first polarization state with the electric field along the x-axis) and substantially transmits light having the other of the first and second polarization states (e.g., a second polarization state with the electric field along the y-axis) in the predetermined wavelength range”); the said waveplate (50 "first retarder") is configured to modify the polarization state of transmitted light in a predetermined wavelength range (paragraph 0047 states “The first retarder layer 50 can be substantially a quarter wave retarder at at least one wavelength in the predetermined wavelength range”).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Etter and Ouderkirk discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and Etter further discloses wherein the said optical transparent member (20 “second optical lens”) selected from the said transparent member (20 “second optical lens”) is made of a plastic material (paragraph 0052 states "The first and second optical lenses 10 and 20, of the optical system 500 may be made of any suitable material such as glass or plastic").
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Etter and Ouderkirk discloses all the limitations of claim 18 and Etter further discloses wherein the said plastic material is selected from a plastic material group including polycarbonate, polymethyl methacrylate, polystyrene, cyclic olefin copolymer, cycloolefin polymer material (paragraph 0052 states "The second optical lens 20 may be made of plastic and may comprises one or more of polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA), a polystyrene, a polyvinyl alcohol, and a polycarbonate").
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Etter and Ouderkirk discloses all the limitations of claim 1, however Etter does not disclose wherein the said reflective polarizer has higher transmittance for the wavelength range 800-1000 nm than transmittance for the wavelength range 400-800 nm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize a reflective polarizer such that the said reflective polarizer has higher transmittance for the wavelength range 800-1000 nm than transmittance for the wavelength range 400-800 nm, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Antonie 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); In re Boesch 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Etter (US 20200081234 A1), in view of Ouderkirk (US 9557568 B1), and further in view of Taylor (US 4818661 A).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Etter and Ouderkirk discloses all the limitations of claim 5, however Etter does not disclose wherein the said beam splitter is a reflective mesh including a high reflective area and a low reflective area within the said field region.
Ouderkirk teaches wherein the said beam splitter including a high reflective area and a low reflective area within the said field region (Figure 18 shows areas of high reflectance and areas of low reflectance).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the optical system of Etter modified by wherein the said beam splitter including a high reflective area and a low reflective area within the said field region, as taught by Ouderkirk, in order to increase efficiency in a compact configuration (column 7, lines 49-60).
Taylor teaches wherein the said beam splitter is a reflective mesh (column 1, lines 9-18 state “Such metallic meshes may be utilized, for example, as elements in Fabry-Perot or Michelson interferometers, as filters to filter radiation, liquids or particles, as optical/infrared reflectors, as optical/infrared beam splitters or dichroics, as optical polarizers and in other like devices”).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the optical system of Etter modified by wherein the said beam splitter is a reflective mesh, as taught by Taylor, in order to achieve a very flat, polished, and uniform surface (column 1, lines 9-18).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Etter, Ouderkirk, and Taylor discloses all the limitations of claim 7 and Etter further discloses wherein the beam splitter (30 "partial reflector") is a reflective mirror coating (paragraph 0044 states "The partial reflector used in the optical systems of the present description may be any suitable partial reflector. For example, the partial reflector may be constructed by coating a thin layer of a metal (e.g., silver or aluminum) on a transparent substrate (e.g., a film which may then be adhered to a lens, or the substrate may be a lens). The partial reflector may also be formed by depositing thin-film dielectric coatings onto a surface of a lens substrate, or by depositing a combination of metallic and dielectric coatings on the surface, for example ... The partial reflector may be a half mirror, for example"). However, Etter does not disclose the beam splitter is a reflective mesh.
Taylor teaches the beam splitter is a reflective mesh (column 1, lines 9-18 state “Such metallic meshes may be utilized, for example, as elements in Fabry-Perot or Michelson interferometers, as filters to filter radiation, liquids or particles, as optical/infrared reflectors, as optical/infrared beam splitters or dichroics, as optical polarizers and in other like devices”).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the optical system of Etter modified by the beam splitter is a reflective mesh, as taught by Taylor, in order to achieve a very flat, polished, and uniform surface (column 1, lines 9-18).
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Etter (US 20200081234 A1), in view of Ouderkirk (US 9557568 B1), and further in view of Suzuki (US 4586786 A).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Etter and Ouderkirk discloses all the limitations of claim 9 and Etter further discloses wherein the said beam splitter (30 "partial reflector") is an optical thin film coating (paragraph 0044 states "The partial reflector used in the optical systems of the present description may be any suitable partial reflector. For example, the partial reflector may be constructed by coating a thin layer of a metal (e.g., silver or aluminum) on a transparent substrate (e.g., a film which may then be adhered to a lens, or the substrate may be a lens). The partial reflector may also be formed by depositing thin-film dielectric coatings onto a surface of a lens substrate, or by depositing a combination of metallic and dielectric coatings on the surface, for example ... The partial reflector may be a half mirror, for example").
However, Etter does not disclose wherein the said beam splitter is a patterned optical thin film coating.
Suzuki teaches wherein the said beam splitter is a patterned optical thin film coating (column 4, lines 51-68 state “FIG. 6 shows an embodiment of the mirror pattern on the area type beam splitter 9.sub.1”).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the optical system of Etter modified by wherein the said beam splitter is a patterned optical thin film coating, as taught by Suzuki, in order to enhance the accuracy of the light splitting ratio (column 4, lines 51-68 state “FIG. 6 shows an embodiment of the mirror pattern on the area type beam splitter 9.sub.1”).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Etter and Ouderkirk discloses all the limitations of claim 9 and Etter further discloses wherein the said beam splitter (30 "partial reflector") is a reflective mirror coating (paragraph 0044 states "The partial reflector used in the optical systems of the present description may be any suitable partial reflector. For example, the partial reflector may be constructed by coating a thin layer of a metal (e.g., silver or aluminum) on a transparent substrate (e.g., a film which may then be adhered to a lens, or the substrate may be a lens). The partial reflector may also be formed by depositing thin-film dielectric coatings onto a surface of a lens substrate, or by depositing a combination of metallic and dielectric coatings on the surface, for example ... The partial reflector may be a half mirror, for example").
However, Etter does not disclose wherein the said beam splitter is a patterned reflective mirror coating.
Suzuki teaches wherein the said beam splitter is a patterned reflective mirror coating (column 4, lines 51-68 state “FIG. 6 shows an embodiment of the mirror pattern on the area type beam splitter 9.sub.1”).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the optical system of Etter modified by wherein the said beam splitter is a patterned reflective mirror coating, as taught by Suzuki, in order to enhance the accuracy of the light splitting ratio (column 4, lines 51-68 state “FIG. 6 shows an embodiment of the mirror pattern on the area type beam splitter 9.sub.1”).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Etter and Ouderkirk discloses all the limitations of claim 9 and Etter further discloses a display device (55 "imager", Figure 1A) configured to generate a light beam (paragraph 0055 states "The imager 55 emits the image 15 which is incident on the first lens 10"). However, Etter does not disclose a display device having a pixel pitch and a pixel array, and the pixel pitch is spacing from the center of a pixel to the center of the adjacent pixel, wherein the dimension of the mesh unit cell is on the order of the said pixel pitch.
Ratcliff teaches a display device (1526 “head mounted display”, Figure 15) having a pixel pitch (paragraph 0122 states “the curved lens array may have a lens array pitch and a display spacing”) and a pixel array (paragraph 0122 states “the curved lens array may have a lens array pitch and a display spacing”), wherein the pixel pitch is spacing from the center of a pixel to the center of the adjacent pixel.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the optical system of Etter modified by a display device having a pixel pitch and a pixel array, wherein the pixel pitch is spacing from the center of a pixel to the center of the adjacent pixel, as taught by Ratcliff, in order to optimize perceived resolution and target field of view (paragraph 0122).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize a reflective mesh unit cell and a pixel pitch such that wherein the dimension of the mesh unit cell is on the order of the said pixel pitch, since such a modification would involve only a mere change in size of a component. Scaling up or down of an element which merely requires a change in size is generally considered as being within the ordinary skill in the art. In re Rinehart, 189 USPQ 143 (CCAP 1976).
However, Etter (US 20200081234 A1), Ouderkirk (US 9557568 B1), Taylor (US 4818661 A), and Suzuki (US 4586786 A), either singularly or in combination, do not disclose or suggest the said beam splitter area is configured as the areas in a reflective mesh unit cell, wherein the mesh unit cell consist of the said first beam splitter area and the said second beam splitter area, along with other claim limitations.
Claims 11, 12, 16, and 17 depend on claim 10, so they are allowable for the same reasons.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAINA M SWANSON whose telephone number is (703)756-5809. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7:30am-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, Pinping Sun can be reached at 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 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.
/ALAINA MARIE SWANSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/WILLIAM R ALEXANDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872