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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “21” has been used to designate both “arm set” (Fig. 2) and an object (Fig. 4). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: neither “21” in Fig. 4, nor a corresponding description of the object is detailed with respect to Fig. 4. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a reflective sheet and a magnifying sheet; wherein the reflective sheet is configured to receive a projected image and then reflect the projected image; wherein the magnifying sheet is configured to receive and then magnify a reflected image from the reflective sheet… wherein the reflective sheet is a dual-curved convex mirror or the magnifying sheet is a dual-curved concave mirror to provide a vertical defocus; wherein the reflected image displayed in a vertical virtual image distance is farther than in a horizontal virtual image distance”. As a first matter, the unconventional prepositional phrase “image displayed in a vertical virtual image distance” is contrary to its ordinary meaning. The written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The propositional phrase “image displayed in a vertical virtual image distance” does not have a clear use in the claim. Generally, phrases regarding a virtual image would refer to an image displayed in a virtual plane, or on a virtual surface, or at a virtual point, or at a distance from a particular element of the optical system. The phrase is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Additionally, the limitation "the reflected image" in Line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as there are at least two reflected images required in the claim (i.e. a reflected image from the reflective sheet, and a reflected image from the magnifying sheet).
Lastly, the claim requires a projected image to be reflected through the mirror system thereby forming a virtual image displayed in relationship to “a vertical virtual image distance” and “a horizontal virtual image distance”. Given the claimed optical system, a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand the system to conjugately map a point in object space into at least one point in (virtual) image space. A projected image, as disclosed by Applicant as originating from an object (e.g. “such as smartphones and tablets” and object of Fig. 4), propagating through the reflector system would not be imaged to a single plane/surface/point at a virtual image distance but rather different points in the object space correspond to unique points in the image space and thus there are plural distances at which an object reflects to a virtual image. It could be said that a projected image of an object maps to a virtual image at plural distances or a range of distances, but not that an object maps to a virtual image at a distance. Appropriate correction is required.
Dependent Claims 2-10 do not remedy the deficiencies.
In Claim 2, definitions of VIDh and VIDv are indefinite for being relative measurements without a specified reference frame by which to measure. While Claim 1 recites a “horizontal virtual image distance” and a “vertical virtual image distance”, the claims do not clarify the plane from which to measure the distance. As the optical system provides off-axis optical propagation from convex and concave surfaces, there is plane from which a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand a virtual image to be measured.
The numerical condition on VIDh, VIDv, and α does not consistently use units of measurement. As both VIDh and VIDv are distances, either these are values presenting distances in a particular unit of measure or α should be expressed in units of inverse-distance (i.e. m-1).
Claim 3 recites “the reflective sheet and the magnifying sheet are provided with a nip angle therebetween; wherein the nip angle ranges between 24⁰ ~32⁰”. Neither the Specifications nor the claims clearly define the metes and bounds of the claimed “nip angle”. From the cross-sectional view of reflective sheet and magnifying sheet in Fig. 5, it appears that the nip angle is defined between axes related to the respective sheets. It is unclear how the axes relate to the reflective and magnifying sheets as the cross-sectional views lack information regarding a third dimension of the surfaces that are claimed, in part, as curved. The metes and bounds of the claim language cannot be determined as a person having ordinary skill in the art would not understand embodiments falling within the scope of invention.
Additionally, the notation “24⁰~32⁰” does not clearly define the metes and bounds of the claim as it lacks conventional numerical range notation. It is unclear if the tilde symbol is intended to imply an openness to the end of the range or imply that the stated range values are approximate. Further, there is unconventional spacing between the characters as if there is a typographical omission that is not clearly reproduced in copies of the claims and/or specifications. The notation pre-empts prosecution on the merits.
Claim 4 recites “a height ratio” in Line 1 in referencing the magnifying sheet and the reflective sheet without clarifying the metes and bounds of “height” for two three dimensional objects with pertinent degrees of freedom. As the magnifying display device is understood, in light of the Specifications, to extend from a surface from which “height” would be understood to be measured (Fig. 2). Otherwise the term “height” may reference the edge-to-edge distance orthogonal to a mirror normal vector or parallel to a particular tangential plane to the reflective surface. Lastly, the term “height” may reference an edge-to-edge distance relative to an axis between reflectors as the reflector elements are tiltable as disclosed and therefore the pertinent field of view of one mirror is adjustable relative to another in a height direction based on the axis between the reflectors.
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.
Claims 1 and 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 218350636 to Luo, et al. (hereinafter Luo) in view of CN 116009226 to Chen, et al. (hereinafter Chen) and US PG Pub. 2019/0369413 to Wu (hereinafter Wu).
Regarding claim 1, Luo discloses: a magnifying display device (Fig. 1; “then it can effectively pull the distance of the user eye observation target, the whole realizes remote amplifying function, so as to prevent myopia and other eye diseases”) comprising: a magnifying reflective mirror module (“an objective lens group 210 and an ocular lens group 220, the objective lens group 210 comprises a convex mirror 211, the ocular lens group 220 comprises a concave mirror 221; the convex mirror 211 is used for reflecting the image of the table surface to the concave mirror 221, the concave mirror 221 is used for reflecting the image reflected by the convex mirror 211 to the eyes of the user”, Fig. 1), being provided with a reflective sheet (“an objective lens group 210 … the objective lens group 210 comprises a convex mirror 211, …the convex mirror 211 is used for reflecting the image of the table surface to the concave mirror 221, the concave mirror 221 is used for reflecting the image reflected by the convex mirror 211 to the eyes of the user”, Fig. 1) and a magnifying sheet (“an ocular lens group 220, … the ocular lens group 220 comprises a concave mirror 221; the convex mirror 211 is used for reflecting the image of the table surface to the concave mirror 221, the concave mirror 221 is used for reflecting the image reflected by the convex mirror 211 to the eyes of the user”, Fig. 1); wherein the reflective sheet is configured to receive a projected image and then reflect the projected image (“used for reflecting the image reflected by the convex mirror 211 to the eyes of the user”, Fig. 1); wherein the magnifying sheet is configured to receive and then magnify a reflected image from the reflective sheet (“then it can effectively pull the distance of the user eye observation target, the whole realizes remote amplifying function, so as to prevent myopia and other eye diseases”; further necessitated by curvature); and a load frame bracket ( a supporting mechanism 100 and cantilever 230, Fig. 1), wherein the magnifying reflective mirror module is configured to the load frame bracket; wherein the reflective sheet is a dual-curved convex mirror (“an objective lens group 210 … the objective lens group 210 comprises a convex mirror 211, …the convex mirror 211 is used for reflecting the image of the table surface to the concave mirror 221, the concave mirror 221 is used for reflecting the image reflected by the convex mirror 211 to the eyes of the user”, Fig. 1) or the magnifying sheet is a dual-curved concave mirror (“an ocular lens group 220, … the ocular lens group 220 comprises a concave mirror 221; the convex mirror 211 is used for reflecting the image of the table surface to the concave mirror 221, the concave mirror 221 is used for reflecting the image reflected by the convex mirror 211 to the eyes of the user”, Fig. 1); wherein the reflected image is projected on an eyeball forming a focused image in a horizontal line-of-sight image area (“the present application adopt concave mirror 221 and convex mirror 211 to realize remote amplifying refractive effect, when the length of the left and right direction of the mirror surface is too long, the user viewing the concave mirror 221 left and right two side edges, the visual edge will have physical spherical aberration problem, so that the generated spherical aberration and two eye parallax (off-axis phenomenon) is more prominent, long-term use may affect the vision or other function of the body”).
Luo discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose: a dual-curved mirror to provide a vertical defocus; wherein the reflected image displayed in a vertical virtual image distance is farther than in a horizontal virtual image distance; wherein the reflected image is projected on an eyeball forming a defocused image in a vertical line-of-sight image area.
Chen discloses: a mirror to provide a vertical defocus (“edge defocus”, Abstract); wherein the reflected image is projected on an eyeball forming a defocused image in a vertical line-of-sight image area (“edge defocus” from “aspheric” reflectors given coefficients in the Specifications; Abstract).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide edge de-focusing, inclusive of vertical defocus, as taught by Chen with the system as disclosed by Luo. The motivation would have been to correct the retina peripheral hyperopia defocus, so as to control the eye axial growth, and delay the deepening of myopia.
Wu discloses a dual-curved optical element (lens 1 with central zone 131 and defocus zone 132, Fig. 1) to provide a vertical defocus (“an asymmetric optical zone 131 formed on a surface thereof and in non-circular shape… a plurality of convex parts 1311 extended to periphery of the central optical area 13 in a horizontal direction…a defocus area 132 formed on a portion thereof other than the asymmetric optical zone 131”; [0015]); wherein the image displayed in a vertical virtual image distance is farther than in a horizontal virtual image distance (“mage on the peripheral image blurring area 212 of retina 21 to form the first defocus image 2121” & “the defocus area 132 with lower refractive power (more ADD) can be used for defocusing the image and provide myopic blur to the retina”, Figs. 1-2); wherein the reflected image is projected on an eyeball forming a defocused image in a vertical line-of-sight image area (Figs. 1-3; [0015]-[0021]).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide asymmetric defocusing as taught by Wu with the system as disclosed by Luo. The motivation would have been to “so that myopia progression can be controlled without the need of excessively increasing the defocus power of the lens 1, and the required defocus power can be reduced, and the possibility that visual performance in central vision field is affected by excessive defocus power can also be reduced” ([0017]).
Regarding claim 4, Luo discloses a height ratio of the magnifying sheet to the reflective sheet ranges between 1:1.2 and 1:1.5 (“ width W1 of the concave mirror 221 in the longitudinal direction (i.e., up and down) can be 13 cm, 14 cm, 15 cm, 15. 5 cm, 16 cm, 17. 5 cm, 19 cm, 19. 5 cm, 20 cm” and “width W2 of the convex mirror 211 in the longitudinal direction (i.e., up and down) can be 13 cm, 14 cm, 15 cm, 15. 5 cm, 16 cm, 17. 5 cm, 19 cm, 19.5 cm, 20 cm”).
Regarding claim 5, Luo discloses the magnifying sheet is a dual-curved concave mirror (“the radius of the arc surface of the concave mirror is greater than or equal to 500mm, and less than or equal to 650mm” & “the elliptical concave mirror 221”, Fig. 1-4); wherein the magnifying sheet is provided with a vertical curvature and a horizontal curvature (“the radius of the arc surface of the concave mirror is greater than or equal to 500mm, and less than or equal to 650mm” & “the elliptical concave mirror 221”, Fig. 1-4); wherein the reflective sheet is a flat mirror or a convex mirror (Figs. 1-4).
Luo discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose a vertical curvature is grater than the horizontal curvature.
Wu discloses a vertical curvature is grater than the horizontal curvature (“image on the peripheral image blurring area 212 of retina 21 to form the first defocus image 2121” & “the defocus area 132 with lower refractive power (more ADD) can be used for defocusing the image and provide myopic blur to the retina”, Figs. 1-2); wherein the reflected image is projected on an eyeball forming a defocused image in a vertical line-of-sight image area (Figs. 1-3; [0015]-[0021]).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide asymmetric defocusing as taught by Wu with the system as disclosed by Luo. The motivation would have been to “so that myopia progression can be controlled without the need of excessively increasing the defocus power of the lens 1, and the required defocus power can be reduced, and the possibility that visual performance in central vision field is affected by excessive defocus power can also be reduced” ([0017]).
Regarding claim 6, Luo discloses the reflective sheet is a dual-curved convex mirror (Figs. 1-4); wherein the reflective sheet is provided with a vertical curvature and a horizontal curvature (Figs. 1-4); wherein the magnifying sheet is a concave mirror (Figs. 1-4).
Luo discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose wherein the vertical curvature is less than the horizontal curvature.
Wu discloses wherein the vertical curvature is less than the horizontal curvature (Figs. 1-3; [0015]-[0021]).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide asymmetric defocusing as taught by Wu with the system as disclosed by Luo. The motivation would have been to “so that myopia progression can be controlled without the need of excessively increasing the defocus power of the lens 1, and the required defocus power can be reduced, and the possibility that visual performance in central vision field is affected by excessive defocus power can also be reduced” ([0017]).
Regarding claim 7, Luo discloses the magnifying reflective mirror module further includes a reverse frame with two ends; wherein the reflective sheet is provided with an upper edge and the magnifying sheet is provided with a lower edge (Fig. 1); wherein one end of the reverse frame is connected to the upper edge of the reflective sheet, and the other end of the reverse frame is connected to the lower edge of the magnifying sheet (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Luo discloses the load frame bracket includes an arm set (Fig. 1) and a fixed base (Fig. 1); wherein the arm set is provided with two ends; wherein one end of the arm set is connected to the magnifying reflective mirror module (cantilever 230, Fig 1), and the other end of the arm set is connected to the fixed base (cantilever 230, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Luo discloses the arm set further includes a first arm (portion of armature for element labeled supporting mechanism 100, Fig. 1), a second arm (a different portion of armature for element labeled supporting mechanism 100, Fig. 1), a first shaft (connecting shaft of armature for element labeled supporting mechanism 100, Fig. 1) and a second shaft (a different connecting shaft of armature for element labeled supporting mechanism 100, Fig. 1); wherein the first arm is provided with two ends and the second arm is provided with two ends (Fig. 1); wherein one end of the first arm is connected to the fixed base, and the other end of the first arm is connected to the first shaft; wherein one end of the second arm is connected to the second shaft, and the other end of the second arm is connected to the first shaft (See below).
PNG
media_image1.png
825
894
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Luo discloses the arm set and the fixed base are provided with a third shaft therebetween (see above).
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. All cited references relate to methods and modes of slowing myopia progression by defocusing and/or magnification systems.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J STANFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3337. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-4PM PST M-F.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571)272-2333. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER STANFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872