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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed April 7, 2026, with respect to claim rejections under 112 have been fully considered and in combination with the amendments to the claims are persuasive. The claim rejections under 112 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed April 7, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument centered on Yonezawa (and/or Weber or Kim) failing to disclose the distance between the first and second lenses may be changed, the examiner is unpersuaded. The claims do not require this feature. The pertinent claim language (emphasis added by examiner) is:
… wherein in response to the spacing distance being a first distance, the second lens set provides a first focus length, and in response to the spacing distance being a second distance, the second lens set provides a second focus length, wherein the first distance is less than the second distance, and the first focus length is less than the second focus length.
The language is stating a property of two lenses placed at different separation distances – the claim has no language that the spacing is adjustable or adjusted. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Further, for clarity, the examiner asserts that the claimed responses for lenses placed at different separation distances is an inherent property for two positive lenses. The compound lens formula describing the change in combined focal length (F) for two lenses with focal lengths of f1 and f2, separated by a distance (d), i.e.
1
F
=
1
f
1
+
1
f
2
-
d
f
1
f
2
, is well establish1. The two commensurate lenses in Yonezawa are 50b and 50c. Lens 50b, see figure 2, is described in paragraphs [0049-51] as microlens array including a plurality of convex lenses, i.e. lens 50b has a positive focal length. Lens 50c is described in paragraphs [0054-55] as a condenser/convex lens and figure 2 clearly shows the light rays converging, i.e. lens 50c has a positive focal length. For the case of two positive lenses (as disclosed by Yonezawa) when “the first distance is less than the second distance” it is inherent that “the first focus length is less than the second focus length.” For example, if f1=f2=10mm and d (in mm)=0, 1, 2, 3, …. than F(in mm)=5, 5.26, 5.56, 5.88, …. This “response” is an inherent progression for all case of two positive lenses, as disclosed by Yonezawa. Thus, the examiner has provided a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art, as held in Ex parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d 1461, 1464 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990). It has been held “the discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.
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.
Claims 7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 7, it is dependent upon claim 5, however claim 5 has been cancelled, making claim incomplete. “If the base claim has been canceled, a claim which is directly or indirectly dependent thereon should be rejected as incomplete” see MPEP 608.01(n).V. Given the amendments of April 7, 2026 the examiner, for purposes of examination, will assume that claim 7 is dependent upon claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, it is dependent upon claim 11, however claim 11 has been cancelled, making claim incomplete. “If the base claim has been canceled, a claim which is directly or indirectly dependent thereon should be rejected as incomplete” see MPEP 608.01(n).V. Given the amendments of April 7, 2026 the examiner, for purposes of examination, will assume that claim 12 is dependent upon claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 7, 9-10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yonezawa US Patent Application Publication 2022/0082835, of record.
In regards to claim 1 Yonezawa discloses an image display device (title e.g. figures 1-2 image display apparatus 100), comprising: an image light source (e.g. light source 10) disposed to project a display image (e.g. paragraph [0040] “light irradiated by the light source 10” see figure 2); a first lens set (e.g. condenser 20), receiving and collimates the display image (e.g. see figure 2); a diffractive optical element (e.g. SLM 30 paragraph [0041] “SLM 30 is a device that displays thereon an interference pattern (a diffraction pattern)”), receiving the collimated display image (e.g. see figure 2), and diffracting respective portions of the collimated display image to generate a plurality of image sub-beams (e.g. diffracted lights L1, L2 & L3); a second lens set (e.g. lens-array group 50), receiving the plurality of image sub-beams corresponding to the respective portions of the collimated display image (e.g. see figure 2), wherein the second lens set provides a focus length (axiomatic e.g. see figure 2), and focuses the plurality of image sub- beams according to the focus length to generate a plurality of zoomed image sub-beams corresponding to the respective portions of the collimated display image (axiomatic e.g. see figure 2); and (e.g. hologram lens 60), receiving the plurality of zoomed image sub-beams (e.g. see figure 2), reflecting the plurality of zoomed image sub-beams to a target plane (e.g. see figure 1), and causing the plurality of zoomed image sub-beams to form a plurality of image imaging points on the target plane (e.g. see figure 2); wherein the second lens set (e.g. 50) comprises: a first lens (e.g. 50b); and a second lens (e.g. 50c), arranged parallel to the first lens (e.g. see figure 2), wherein a spacing distance is between a center point of the second lens and a center point of the first lens (e.g. see figure 2); wherein in response to the spacing distance being a first distance, the second lens set provides a first focus length, and in response to the spacing distance being a second distance, the second lens set provides a second focus length, wherein the first distance is less than the second distance, and the first focus length is less than the second focus length (since 50b and 50c are both positive lenses, see paragraphs [0044 & 0051] note both 50b & 50c are convex lenses, i.e. they are both positive lenses – given the formula for determining the combined focal length (F) of two lenses separated by a distance (d) is
1
F
=
1
f
1
+
1
f
2
-
d
f
1
f
2
, since the focal length of the first and second lenses (f1 & f2) are constant and positive as d increases F increases, as discussed above).
Regarding claim 7 Yonezawa discloses the image display device according to claim 1, as set forth above. Yonezawa further discloses wherein both of the first lens (e.g. 50b) and the second lens (e.g. 50c) are positive lenses (paragraphs [0044 & 0051] note both 50b & 50c are convex lenses, which are positive).
Regarding claim 9 Yonezawa discloses the image display device according to claim 1, as set forth above. Yonezawa further discloses wherein the plurality of image imaging points are distributed on the target plane in an array (e.g. see figure 2).
Regarding claim 10 Yonezawa discloses the image display device according to claim 1, as set forth above. Yonezawa further discloses wherein an angle between a normal vector of the coupler (e.g. 60) and a forward direction of the zoomed image sub-beam (e.g. light from 50) is not at 0 degree (e.g. see figure 1, particularly incidence of light from 50 reflected to the eye would not be along the normal axis of 60).
Regarding claim 13 Yonezawa discloses the image display device according to claim 1, as set forth above. Yonezawa further discloses wherein center points of the first lens set (e.g. 20), the diffractive optical element (e.g. 30), and the second lens set (e.g. 50) are arranged on an optical axis of the plurality of image light beams (e.g. see figure 2 showing 20, 30 & 50 centered on an optical axis).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yonezawa US Patent Application Publication 2022/0082835, of record, in view of Weber et al. US Patent 11,237,413, of record.
Regarding claim 12 Yonezawa discloses the image display device according to claim 1, as set forth above. Yonezawa further discloses, wherein the image light source (e.g. 10) is a laser light source (paragraph [0039] “10 is typically a coherent light source such as a laser”). While Yonezawa suggests a scanning laser light source in paragraph [0002], Yonezawa does not disclose the laser light source is scanning laser light source. Weber teaches a similar image display device (title e.g. figure 3 head-mounted display/HMD 120) including a light source providing image light (e.g. display 312); and further teaches the display may be laser scanned (Weber column 7 lines 17-19) for the purpose of having a large field of view (Yonezawa paragraph [0002]). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the laser light source in the image display device as disclosed by Yonezawa to be a scanning laser light source as taught by Weber for the purpose of having a large field of view.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hecht “Optics, Second Edition” page 214, 1987, in evidence of inherent physical properties described by well establish formulas used in physics/optics as noted above.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to George G King whose telephone number is (303)297-4273. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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.
/George G. King/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 May 6, 2026
1 As evidenced by Hecht “Optics, Second Edition” 1987, page 214 equation 6.8.
Prosecution Insights