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 Objections
Claims 6, 9, 16 and 19 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 6 and 16, line 2, the word “that” should be “than”; and
Claims 9 and 19, the phase “the beamsplitter” should be “the beamsplitting element”.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-9, 11-15 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gollier US Patent 10474229.
Regarding claim 1, Gollier discloses a device (100), in figs.1-6, comprising:
an optical system (107 or 207) that creates an image to a user (a user with 150, 250 or 307), wherein the optical system comprises:
a beamsplitting element (303); and
a reflective polarizer (306) that reflects a first handedness of circularly polarized light and transmits a second handedness of polarized light (see figs.1-3D); and
a light-absorbing element (305) that absorbs a portion of the light transmitted by the optical system (see figs.3B-3D and col.14, lines 43-45).
Regarding claim 2, Gollier discloses the reflective polarizer comprises a cholesteric reflective polarizer (see col.9, lines 47-49).
Regarding claim 3, Gollier discloses the reflective polarizer comprises: a linear reflective polarizer (306); and a retarder (304)(see figs.3C and 3D).
Regarding claim 4, Gollier discloses the linear reflective polarizer comprises at least one of:
a birefringent polymer multilayer optical film (see col.9, lines 47-49); or
a wire grid.
Regarding claim 5, Gollier discloses the absorbed portion of light is greater than at least one of: 10% of the light; 20% of the light; 30% of the light; 40% of the light; or 50% of the light (col.10, lines 44-46).
Regarding claim 7, Gollier discloses the light-absorbing element in pass-polarization has lower absorption for wavelengths of about 460 nanometers, about 520 nanometers, and about 615 nanometers than for other wavelengths (col.10, lines 37-46, absorption of visible light less than 10% and absorption of IR light 20%-80% and col.14, lines 38-41).
Regarding claim 8, Gollier discloses the light-absorbing element is between the reflective polarizer and a location for a user's eye (307) (see figs.3C and 3D).
Regarding claim 9, Gollier discloses the light-absorbing element is between the reflective polarizer and the beamsplitting element (fig.3B).
Regarding claim 11, Gollier discloses a system (100), in figs.1-6, comprising:
a display (105);
an optical system (107 or 207) that creates an image from the display to a user (a user with 150, 250 or 307), wherein the optical system comprises:
a beamsplitting element (303); and
a reflective polarizer (306) that reflects a first handedness of circularly polarized light and transmits a second handedness of polarized light (see figs.1-3D); and
a light-absorbing element (305) that absorbs a portion of the light transmitted by the optical system (see figs.3B-3D and col.14, lines 43-45).
Regarding claim 12, Gollier discloses the reflective polarizer comprises a cholesteric reflective polarizer (see col.9, lines 47-49).
Regarding claim 13, Gollier discloses the reflective polarizer comprises: a linear reflective polarizer (306); and a retarder (304)(see figs.3C and 3D).
Regarding claim 14, Gollier discloses the linear reflective polarizer comprises at least one of:
a birefringent polymer multilayer optical film (see col.9, lines 47-49); or
a wire grid.
Regarding claim 15, Gollier discloses the absorbed portion of light is greater than 10% of the light (col.10, lines 44-46).
Regarding claim 17, Gollier discloses the light-absorbing element in pass-polarization has lower absorption for wavelengths of about 460 nanometers, about 520 nanometers, and about 615 nanometers than for other wavelengths (col.10, lines 37-46, absorption of visible light less than 10% and absorption of IR light 20%-80% and col.14, lines 38-41).
Regarding claim 18, Gollier discloses the light-absorbing element is between the reflective polarizer and a location for a user's eye (307) (see figs.3C and 3D).
Regarding claim 19, Gollier discloses the light-absorbing element is between the reflective polarizer and the beamsplitting element (fig.3B).
Regarding claim 20, Gollier discloses a method of manufacture, in figs.1-6, comprising:
disposing, between a display (103) and an eye box (150, 250 or 307), an optical system that creates an image from the display to a user (a user with 150, 250 or 307), wherein the optical system comprises:
a beamsplitting element (303); and
a reflective polarizer (306) that reflects a first handedness of circularly polarized light and transmits a second handedness of polarized light (see figs.1-3D); and
disposing, between the display and the eye box, a light-absorbing element (305) that absorbs a portion of the light transmitted by the optical system (see figs.3B-3D and col.14, lines 43-45).
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) 6 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gollier US Patent 10474229 as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 6, Gollier discloses the light-absorbing element in pass-polarization has very high optical transparency for wavelengths emitted by a display (103)(col.10, lines 43-46, absorber has transmissivity of greater than 90% of visible light).
Gollier does not explicitly disclose the light-absorbing element in pass-polarization has higher optical transparency for wavelengths emitted by the display than for photopically weighted white light. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the light-absorbing element in pass-polarization has higher optical transparency for wavelengths emitted by the display than for photopically weighted white light since it was known in the art that it will reduce ghost images of glints and reduce or eliminate reflections of the user's eyes in the pancake block due to illumination of the eyes from the near-eye display (col.4, lines 24-28).
Regarding claim 10, Gollier discloses the claimed invention except for “the light-absorbing element has a higher absorptivity at the center than at 50% of the outer radius of the edge by at least one of: 10% or more; 20% or more; or 30% or more”. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to the light-absorbing element has a higher absorptivity at the center than at 50% of the outer radius of the edge by at least one of: 10% or more; 20% or more; or 30% or more, since applicant has not disclosed that “the light-absorbing element has a higher absorptivity at the center than at 50% of the outer radius of the edge by at least one of: 10% or more; 20% or more; or 30% or more” solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the entire portion of light-absorbing element with the same or similar absorptivity. Also, Gollier discloses use a light-absorbing element (305) in the device to reduce ghost images of glints and reduce or eliminate reflections of the user's eyes in the pancake block due to illumination of the eyes from the near-eye display (col.4, lines 24-28), which is the same purpose as the current application.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gollier US Patent 10474229 as applied to claim 11 above.
Regarding claim 16, Gollier discloses the light-absorbing element in pass-polarization has very high optical transparency for wavelengths emitted by a display (103)(col.10, lines 43-46, absorber has transmissivity of greater than 90% of visible light).
Gollier does not explicitly disclose the light-absorbing element in pass-polarization has higher optical transparency for wavelengths emitted by the display than for photopically weighted white light. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the light-absorbing element in pass-polarization has higher optical transparency for wavelengths emitted by the display than for photopically weighted white light since it was known in the art that it will reduce ghost images of glints and reduce or eliminate reflections of the user's eyes in the pancake block due to illumination of the eyes from the near-eye display (col.4, lines 24-28).
Contact Information
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Dike US 20050111101 (fig.2) and AMIRSOLAIMANI US 20200341268 (at least figs.3-4) can be a primary reference too.
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