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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 03/12/2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election traverse of Invention I, claims 1-19 in the reply filed on 03/12/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/12/2026.
Also, Applicant's election with traverse of Species B (figs.10-12), claims 1-19 in the reply filed on 03/12/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that
“the restriction requirement issued under MPEP §806.05(j), which addresses related product or process inventions. According to MPEP §806.05(j), a restriction requirement between related product inventions must be supported by a demonstration that the inventions are distinct, i.e., they must simultaneously satisfy all of the following three criteria:
(A) The inventions as claimed do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive;
(B) The inventions as claimed are not obvious variants; and
(C) The inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect.
Since all three criteria (A)-(C) must be satisfied in order to establish distinctness under MPEP §806.05(j), failure to satisfy any one of these criteria means that the inventions are not "distinct" within the meaning of MPEP §806.05(j), and therefore restriction is improper.
In the present application, Claims 1-19 are drafted in generic form and encompass the embodiments corresponding to Species A-H. For example, the First Embodiment (corresponding to one of the alleged species) includes structural features that fall within the scope of both Claim I and Claim 11. Likewise, the Second through Tenth Embodiments (including those corresponding to Species A-H) are each encompassed within the scope of Claims 1 and 11, as shown in the drawings. Because Claims 1-19 read on all of the embodiments associated with Species A-H, the alleged species are not mutually exclusive in claim scope. Rather, they fall within overlapping generic claims. Accordingly, criterion (A) of MPEP §806.05(j) is not satisfied.
Since MPEP §806.05(j) requires that all three criteria (A)-(C) be satisfied to establish distinctness, failure to satisfy any one of them precludes a finding of distinct inventions. Because the alleged Species A-H overlap in scope under the pending claims and are not mutually exclusive as claimed, they do not meet the definition of "distinct" under MPEP §806.05(j). Therefore, the requirement for election of a single species is improper. Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the species restriction requirement”. This is not found persuasive because firstly current Species restriction is not under MPEP §806.05(j). Secondly, no all Claims 1-19 read on all of the embodiments associated with Species A-H. For instance, only Species C read on claim 2 and only Species C not read on claim 11, Species E does not read on claims 3 and 4, Species D does not read on claim 7, and there are other unobvious variants between different Species A-H based on the current record. Therefore, the species are independent or distinct because they are mutually exclusive embodiments to each other and they are indicated as different embodiments in applicant's specification (para.16-45) as well. In addition, there is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply:
a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their
different classification;
(b) the inventions have acquired a separated status in the art due to
their recognized divergent subject matter;
(c) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching
different classes/subclasses, CPC codes, or electronic resources, or employing different search queries).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
In addition, The Examiner believes that claim 2 corresponds to Species C (figs.19-21) only (see para.96 of current application, an anti-reflective film is designed on the display-side surface 16 of the first optical element 1 and the eye-side surface 25 of the second optical element 2).
Therefore, only claims 1 and 3-19 are elected; and
Claim 2 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 03/12/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17 and 19 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, bottom up line 4, “satisfy” should be “satisfies”;
Claim 9 should be depended on claim 7 instead of claim 1 because T1 is cited in claim 7;
Claims 10, 14 and 19, the claim limitation “TL is a distance from the eye-side surface of the optical element closest to the eye-side to the display-side surface of the second optical element on the optical axis” should be “TL is a distance from the eye-side surface of the first optical element closest to the eye-side to the display-side surface of the second optical element on the optical axis”;
Claims 13 and 17, the claim limitation “TTL is a distance from the eye-side surface of the optical element closest to the eye-side to the display screen on the optical axis” should be “TTL is a distance from the eye-side surface of the first optical element closest to the eye-side to the display screen on the optical axis”; and
Claims 1 and 11, the claim limitations “the quarter-wave plate is disposed on the display-side of the first optical element or between the reflective polarizing film and the eye-side of the first optical element” should be “the quarter-wave plate is disposed .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 11, 12, 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Signoretto US 2024/0345411.
Regarding claim 11, Signoretto discloses an ocular optical system, in at least figs. 1-8 and 21-23, configured to allow imaging rays from a display screen (10 or 10 with 20) to enter an eye of an observer (U) through the ocular optical system to form an image (see figs.1 and 21-23 and para.95), wherein a side toward the eye is an eye-side (see figs.1 and 21-23), and a side toward the display screen is a display-side (see figs.1 and 21-23), the ocular optical system comprises a first optical element (40PB) and a second optical element (40) sequentially arranged along an optical axis from the eye-side to the display-side (see figs.1 and 21-23), each of the first optical element and the second optical element comprising an eye-side surface facing the eye-side and allowing the imaging rays to pass through and a display-side surface facing the display-side and allowing the imaging rays to pass through (see figs.1 and 21-23), the ocular optical system also comprises a reflective polarizing film (51) and a quarter-wave plate (52);
the eye-side surface of the first optical element, the display-side surface of the first optical element and the eye-side surface of the second optical element satisfy a conditional expression as follows:
PV≤160 μm, wherein a PV is a peak to valley value of a surface (PV equal to about 0 μm, see figs.1 and 21-23, the eye-side surface of the first optical element, the display-side surface of the first optical element and the eye-side surface of the second optical element are flat);
the reflective polarizing film is disposed on the eye-side of the first optical element (see figs.1 and 21-23);
the quarter-wave plate is disposed between the reflective polarizing film and the eye-side of the first optical element (see figs.1 and 21-23); and
there is no air gap between the display-side surface of the first optical element and the eye-side surface of the second optical element (see figs.1 and 21-23).
Regarding claim 12, Signoretto discloses the display-side surface of the second optical element is convex (see at least fig.1).
Regarding claim 15, Signoretto discloses the ocular optical system further satisfies a conditional expression as follows: 2.5≤ImgH/T2≤3.7 (ImgH/T2=24.75/8=3.09 for fig.1), wherein T2 is a thickness of the second optical element on the optical axis.
Regarding claim 16, Signoretto discloses the ocular optical system further satisfies a conditional expression as follows: 3.0≤ER22/T2≤7.0 (25.9/8=3.23 for fig.1), wherein ER22 is a maximum distance from a center of the display-side surface of the second optical element to a mounting portion, and T2 is a thickness of the second optical element on the optical axis.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Signoretto US 2024/0345411.
Regarding claim 1, Signoretto discloses an ocular optical system, in at least figs. 1-8 and 21-23, configured to allow imaging rays from a display screen (10 or 10 with 20) to enter an eye of an observer (U) through the ocular optical system to form an image (see figs.1 and 21-23 and para.95), wherein a side toward the eye is an eye-side (see figs.1 and 21-23), and a side toward the display screen is a display-side (see figs.1 and 21-23), the ocular optical system comprises a first optical element (40PB) and a second optical element (40) sequentially arranged along an optical axis from the eye-side to the display-side (see figs.1 and 21-23), each of the first optical element and the second optical element comprising an eye-side surface facing the eye-side and allowing the imaging rays to pass through and a display-side surface facing the display-side and allowing the imaging rays to pass through (see figs.1 and 21-23), the ocular optical system also comprises a reflective polarizing film (51) and a quarter-wave plate (52);
the eye-side surface of the first optical element and the display-side surface of the first optical element satisfy a conditional expression as follows: PV≤160 μm, wherein a PV is a peak to valley value of a surface (PV equal to about 0 μm, see figs.1 and 21-23, the eye-side surface of the first optical element and the display-side surface of the first optical element are flat);
the reflective polarizing film is disposed on the eye-side of the first optical element (see figs.1 and 21-23);
the quarter-wave plate is disposed between the reflective polarizing film and the eye-side of the first optical element (see figs.1 and 21-23);
the ocular optical system satisfies a conditional expression as follows:
|ObjD|/ImgH ≥2 (para.95 teaches an enlarge virtual image for the observer),
wherein ObjD is a distance from the eye of the observer to the image formed by the ocular optical system on the optical axis (see para.95 and figs.1 and 21-23), and ImgH is a maximum image height of the ocular optical system (see figs.1 and 21-23).
Signoretto does not explicitly disclose 35≤|ObjD|/ImgH≤200. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to 35≤|ObjD|/ImgH≤200 through routine experimentation and optimization, in re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The Applicant has not disclosed that the range is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another range. Indeed, it has been held that mere range limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. 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 35≤|ObjD|/ImgH≤200 in the ocular optical system of Signoretto because Signoretto has the same/similar physical structure as the current application (fig.10) and teaches an enlarge virtual image for the observer as well (para.95) and it’s well-known to have |ObjD| greater than 650mm for better enlarge virtual image, and ImgH=24.75mm, so that |ObjD|/ImgH≥26 for the purpose of improving magnification ratio and image quality of the optical system (para.51).
Regarding claim 3, Signoretto discloses the eye-side surface of the first optical element and the display-side surface of the first optical element satisfy a conditional expression as follows: PV≤5 μm (PV equal to about 0 μm, see figs.1 and 21-23, the eye-side surface of the first optical element and the display-side surface of the first optical element are flat).
Regarding claim 4, Signoretto does not explicitly disclose the ocular optical system further satisfies a conditional expression as follows: 60≤|ObjD|/ImgH≤200. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to 60≤|ObjD|/ImgH≤200 through routine experimentation and optimization, in re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The Applicant has not disclosed that the range is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another range. Indeed, it has been held that mere range limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. 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 60≤|ObjD|/ImgH≤200 in the ocular optical system of Signoretto because Signoretto has the same/similar physical structure as the current application (fig.10) and teaches an enlarge virtual image for the observer as well (para.95) and it’s well-known to have |ObjD| greater than 650mm for better enlarge virtual image and ImgH=24.75mm, so that |ObjD|/ImgH≥26 for the purpose of improving magnification ratio and image quality of the optical system (para.51).
Regarding claim 5, Signoretto discloses the ocular optical system further satisfies a conditional expression as follows: 18≤|ObjD|/SL≤85 (Signoretto has the same/similar physical structure as the current application (fig.10) and teaches an enlarge virtual image for the observer as well (para.95), and it’s well-known to have |ObjD| greater than 650mm for better enlarge virtual image and fig.21 teaches SL equal to about 26.39mm, so that |ObjD|/SL≥24.63 for the purpose of improving magnification ratio and image quality of the optical system (para.51)), wherein SL is a distance from the eye of the observer to the display screen on the optical axis.
Regarding claim 6, Signoretto discloses the ocular optical system further satisfies a conditional expression as follows: SL/ImgH=26.39/24.75=1.07 (see figs.1 and 23), wherein SL is a distance from the eye of the observer to the display screen on the optical axis.
Signoretto does not explicitly disclose 1.6≤SL/ImgH≤2.8. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to 1.6≤SL/ImgH≤2.8 through routine experimentation and optimization, in re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The Applicant has not disclosed that the range is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another range. Indeed, it has been held that mere range limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. 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 1.6≤SL/ImgH≤2.8 in the ocular optical system of Signoretto because Signoretto has the same/similar physical structure as the current application (fig.10) and teaches an enlarge virtual image for the observer as well (para.95) for the purpose of improving magnification ratio and image quality of the optical system (para.51).
Regarding claim 7, Signoretto discloses the ocular optical system further satisfies a conditional expression as follows: ER12/T1=8.89/0.5=49.5, wherein ER12 is a maximum distance from a center of the display-side surface of the first optical element to a mounting portion, and T1 is a thickness of the first optical element on the optical axis.
Signoretto does not explicitly disclose 2.5≤ER12/T1≤17.0. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to 2.5≤ER12/T1≤17.0 through routine experimentation and optimization, in re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The Applicant has not disclosed that the range is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another range. Indeed, it has been held that mere range limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. 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 2.5≤ER12/T1≤17.0 in the ocular optical system of Signoretto because Signoretto has the same/similar physical structure as the current application (fig.10) and teaches an enlarge virtual image for the observer as well (para.95) for the purpose of improving magnification ratio and image quality of the optical system (para.51).
Regarding claim 8, Signoretto discloses the ocular optical system further satisfies a conditional expression as follows: 2.0≤(ER11+ER21)/ALT≤10.0 ((ER11+ER21)/ALT=(49.5)/8=6.18 for fig.1; (ER11+ER21)/ALT=(49.5)/10.3=4.8 for figs.21-23), wherein ER11 is a maximum distance from a center of the eye-side surface of the first optical element to a mounting portion, ER21 is a maximum distance from a center of the eye-side surface of the second optical element to a mounting portion, and ALT is a sum of thicknesses of the first optical element and the second optical element on the optical axis.
Regarding claim 9, Signoretto discloses the ocular optical system further satisfies a conditional expression as follows: 1.2≤ER/T1≤30.0 (ER/T1=11.15/0.5=23.3), wherein ER is a distance from the eye of the observer to the first optical element on the optical axis.
Regarding claim 10, Signoretto discloses the ocular optical system further satisfies a conditional expression as follows: 2.0≤SL/TL≤6.0 (SL/TL=26.39/11.2=2.36), wherein SL is a distance from the eye of the observer to the display screen on the optical axis, and TL is a distance from the eye-side surface of the first optical element closest to the eye-side to the display-side surface of the second optical element on the optical axis.
Claim(s) 13, 14 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Signoretto US 2024/0345411 as applied to claim 11.
Regarding claim 13, Signoretto discloses the ocular optical system further satisfies a conditional expression as follows: 30≤|ObjD|/TTL≤140 (|ObjD|/TTL=650/14.54≥44.7, teaches an enlarge virtual image for the observer as well (para.95) and it’s well-known to have |ObjD| greater than 650mm for better enlarge virtual image), wherein TTL is a distance from the eye-side surface of the first optical element closest to the eye-side to the display screen on the optical axis.
Regarding claim 14, Signoretto discloses the ocular optical system further satisfies a conditional expression as follows: 60≤|ObjD|/TL≤300 (|ObjD|/TL=650/11.2≥58, teaches an enlarge virtual image for the observer as well (para.95) and it’s well-known to have |ObjD| greater than 650mm for better enlarge virtual image), wherein TL is a distance from the eye-side surface of the optical element closest to the eye-side to the display-side surface of the second optical element on the optical axis.
Regarding claim 17, Signoretto discloses the ocular optical system further satisfies a conditional expression as follows: (ER21+ER22)/TTL=50/14.54=3.4 for fig.23, (ER21+ER22)/TTL=24.75+25.9/14.54=3.48 for fig.1, wherein ER21 is a maximum distance from a center of the eye-side surface of the second optical element to a mounting portion, ER22 is a maximum distance from a center of the display-side surface of the second optical element to a mounting portion, and TTL is a distance from the eye-side surface of the first optical element closest to the eye-side to the display screen on the optical axis.
Signoretto does not disclose 1.5≤(ER21+ER22)/TTL≤3.0. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to 1.5≤(ER21+ER22)/TTL≤3.0 through routine experimentation and optimization, in re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The Applicant has not disclosed that the range is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another range. Indeed, it has been held that mere range limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. 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 1.5≤(ER21+ER22)/TTL≤3.0 in the ocular optical system of Signoretto because Signoretto has the same/similar physical structure as the current application (fig.10) and teaches an enlarge virtual image for the observer as well (para.95) for the purpose of improving magnification ratio and image quality of the optical system (para.51).
Regarding claim 18, Signoretto discloses the ocular optical system further satisfies a conditional expression as follows: ER/T2=11.65/8=1.46 for fig.1, wherein ER is a distance from the eye of the observer to the first optical element on the optical axis, and T2 is a thickness of the second optical element on the optical axis.
Signoretto does not explicitly disclose 2.0≤ER/T2≤4.0. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to 2.0≤ER/T2≤4.0 through routine experimentation and optimization, in re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The Applicant has not disclosed that the range is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another range. Indeed, it has been held that mere range limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. 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 2.0≤ER/T2≤4.0 in the ocular optical system of Signoretto because Signoretto has the same/similar physical structure as the current application (fig.10) and teaches an enlarge virtual image for the observer as well (para.95) for the purpose of improving magnification ratio and image quality of the optical system (para.51).
Regarding claim 19, Signoretto discloses the ocular optical system further satisfies a conditional expression as follows: EFL/TL=121/11.2=10.8 for fig.1, wherein EFL is an effective focal length of the ocular optical system, and TL is a distance from the eye-side surface of the optical element closest to the eye-side to the display-side surface of the second optical element on the optical axis.
Signoretto does not explicitly 1.4≤EFL/TL≤3.6, However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to 1.4≤EFL/TL≤3.6 through routine experimentation and optimization, in re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The Applicant has not disclosed that the range is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another range. Indeed, it has been held that mere range limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. 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 1.4≤EFL/TL≤3.6 in the ocular optical system of Signoretto because Signoretto has the same/similar physical structure as the current application (fig.10) and teaches an enlarge virtual image for the observer as well (para.95) for the purpose of improving magnification ratio and image quality of the optical system (para.51).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIA X PAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7574. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 11:00AM - 5:00PM.
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, Michael H Caley can be reached at (571)272-2286. 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.
/JIA X PAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights