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 .
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 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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 1–12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0384594 to Hong et al.
Regarding Claim 1, Hong discloses (e.g., at least Fig. 1 and its description) a virtual reality optical lens (e.g., paragraphs [0004], [0158], and [0161]), comprising, in order from a front side to a rear side: an image surface IMG having a circular polarizer QWP2 affixed to a rear side of the image surface for emitting light (paragraph [0023], “light is incident from the display unit SC in a vertical polarization state, then the light passes through the second quarter-wave plate QWP2 and is converted into a circular polarization state”); a third lens E3, a front side surface of which is provided with a partially reflective element BS (paragraph [0069]); a second lens E2; a first lens E1, a front side surface of which is provided with a composite film; wherein the composite film comprises: a polarizing reflective film RP, affixed to the front side surface of the first lens; and a quarter-wave sheet QWP1, affixed to a front side of the polarizing reflective film (Fig. 1 and paragraph [0069], noting that Hong and the present application use opposite definitions of “front” and “rear”, though the structures are the same regardless of the side considered the “front” or “rear”); an aperture ST arranged on the rear side of the virtual reality optical lens (Fig. 1); wherein a maximum visible diameter of the virtual reality optical lens is VD; a refractive index of the second lens is nd2; a maximum semi-diameter of lenses of the virtual reality optical lens is SDmax, and the following relationship expressions are satisfied:
1.80≤nd2 (e.g., Table 1, n of E2 is 1.544).
Hong does not particularly discuss, and thus does not explicitly disclose:
VD≥10.00 mm;
SDmax≤23.00 mm.
However, the maximum visible diameter VD would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, where the variable controls known factors like the amount of light entering/exiting the optical system, and selecting VD based on desired system performance would have been obvious, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results tied to the claimed visible diameter range.
Similarly, the semi-diameter of lenses SDmax would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, where the variable controls known factors like the overall size of the system, and selecting SDmax based on desired system size would have been obvious, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results tied to the claimed semi-diameter of the lenses.
Regarding Claim 2, Hong would have rendered obvious wherein a rear side of the first lens is aspheric (paragraph [0058], teaching that lens surfaces may be aspheric to allow “more control variables for eliminating aberrations thereof and reducing the required number of optical lens elements, and the length of the optical system can therefore be effectively shortened”).
Regarding Claim 3, Hong would have rendered obvious wherein a rear side and a front side of the second lens are spheric, and a rear side and a front side of the third lens are aspheric (paragraph [0058], teaching that lens surfaces may be aspheric to allow “more control variables for eliminating aberrations thereof and reducing the required number of optical lens elements, and the length of the optical system can therefore be effectively shortened”).
Regarding Claim 4, Hong would have rendered obvious wherein a field of view of the virtual reality optical lens is FOV, and the following relationship expression is satisfied: 94.50°≤FOV (where Hong teaches FOV of 90°, but selecting a desired FOV based on expected use of the device, such as where wide angle viewing is desired, would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, yielding predictable results, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results).
Regarding Claim 5, Hong would have rendered obvious wherein a total track length of the virtual reality optical lens is TTL, and the following relationship expression is satisfied: TTL≤19.427 mm (where Hong teaches desirably reducing size and weight of the device by reducing total track length TTL, paragraph [0023]).
Regarding Claim 6, Hong would have rendered obvious wherein the partially reflective element is a semi-transparent and semi-reflective film (where BS is described as a partial reflector, and Fig. 1 illustrates light both reflected and transmitted therethrough).
Regarding Claim 7, Hong would have rendered obvious wherein a reflectivity and a transmittance of the semi-transparent semi-reflective film are both 50% (where selecting the specific transmittance/reflectance would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, based on the desired transmittance/reflectance characteristics, yielding predictable results, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results).
Regarding Claim 8, Hong would have rendered obvious wherein a reflectivity of the polarizing reflective film is ≥95% (where Hong does not explicitly disclose specific reflectivity value, but selecting a reflectivity value based on desired optical characteristics would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, yielding predictable results, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results).
Regarding Claim 9, Hong would have rendered obvious wherein an optical distortion of the virtual reality optical lens is ≤28.4% (where Hong appears silent regarding optical distortion, but it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to reduce optical distortion as a matter of design choice, to improve the optical integrity, yielding predictable results, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features).
Regarding Claim 10, Hong would have rendered obvious wherein a chromatic aberration of the virtual reality optical lens is ΔE, and |ΔE|≤57 μm is satisfied (where Hong teaches the desirability of reducing aberration, paragraph [0058], such that reducing aberration would have been obvious, yielding predictable results, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features).
Regarding Claim 11, Hong would have rendered obvious wherein a focal length of the virtual reality optical lens is f; a total track length of the virtual reality optical lens is TTL, and the following relationship expression is satisfied: TTL/f≤0.79 (where Hong teaches desirably reducing size and weight of the device by reducing total track length TTL, paragraph [0023], leading to a reduced TTL/f value).
Regarding Claim 12, Hong would have rendered obvious wherein the image surface is a display with a size of 2.1 inches (where Hong teaches the display for a head mounted device, such that selecting a size such as 2.1 inches would have been obvious as a matter of design choice to balance size of the display and size of the overall device, which would yield predictable results, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claimed size of the display).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN CROCKETT whose telephone number is (571)270-3183. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am to 5pm.
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 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.
/RYAN CROCKETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871