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 .
Drawings
The replacement drawings were received on 6/29/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the specification of the disclosure in the submission filed 6/29/2026 are acknowledged and accepted. In view of these amendments, the objections to the specification in Section 6 of the Office Action dated 12/29/2025 are respectfully withdrawn.
The amendments to Claims 1-2, 4-6, 9-15 in the submission filed 6/29/2026 are acknowledged and accepted.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant's arguments filed 6/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that, with respect to Claims 9 and 10, the term ‘(sag)’ serves as an explanatory parenthetical and not a separate limitation, and cites MPEP 2173.05(d). The Examiner respectfully disagrees, and notes that there are no explanatory parenthetical examples in that MPEP section that supports Applicant’s position. In fact, MPEP 2173.05(d) is exactly the reason why Applicant’s limitation of ‘the distance (sag)’ is unclear, i.e. it is not clear whether Applicant intends a broader generic distance, or a narrower ‘sag’ distance (In optics, sag (often called sagitta) is the physical distance from the center of an arc to a chord connecting its edges.) to be claimed.
Applicant further argues that, with respect to Claims 9-10, various limitations, including ‘the distance (sag)’, ‘the z axis’, ‘the coefficient’, ‘the maximum polynomial degree’, and ‘the curvature’, do not lack antecedent basis since these limitations were already introduced within the claim itself via the recited equation. The Examiner respectfully disagrees, and notes that the claimed recited limitation does not introduce any of the above limitations first. Nowhere in the claimed recited equation are ‘the distance (sag)’, ‘the z axis’, ‘the coefficient’, ‘the maximum polynomial degree’, and ‘the curvature’ first defined, and each of these limitations do not appear to be inherent. Thus, these limitations still lack antecedent basis.
Applicant argues that, with respect to Claim 1, as well as Claims 2-15 which depend on Claim 1, Kim et al. fails to teach or reasonably suggest ‘…the optical path does not include a path reflected from an outer surface of the optical plate.’, and further argues that Kim et al. specifically teaches the use of total internal reflection from the surfaces of the light guide to propagate light through the waveguide. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Figure 3 of Kim et al. explicitly shows the light L1 striking embedded mirror 163, and directly routing that light to embedded mirror 164. No mention of total internal reflection is indicated by Kim et al. since it is not needed to route light that has already been collimated, as shown by L1 in Figure 3. Thus, it is believed that Kim et al. does teach ‘…the optical path does not include a path reflected from an outer surface of the optical plate.’.
Applicant argues that, with respect to Claim 2, Kim et al. fails to teach or reasonably suggest ‘…the optical plate is made up of a plurality of subplates stacked in a thickness direction…’, and that the resulting structural characteristics is a unique product not disclosed by Kim et al. The Examiner respectfully disagrees, and notes that Kim et al. specifically discloses the mirror elements 163 and 164 being embedded mirrors located between subelements of the waveguide plate 162 in Figure 3. Thus, it is believed that Kim et al. meets the structural features recited in Claim 2.
Applicant argues that, with respect to Claim 8, Kim et al. fails to teach or reasonably suggest ‘…the reflective surfaces inside the optical plate include one or more free-form surfaces, one or more aspherical surfaces, and one or more spherical or planar reflective surfaces.’. The Examiner agrees. The rejection of Claim 8 is respectfully withdrawn.
Applicant argues that, with respect to Claim 3, Kim et al. fails to teach or reasonably suggest ‘…the optical plate with a thickness of 5 mm to 12 mm.’ since the stated motivation was merely conclusory and not supported by Kim et al. It is noted that the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Applicant has not provided any evidence to show that having the optical plate be 5-12 mm in thickness cannot provide adequate mechanical thickness of the glass plate for mechanical rigidity/stability, particular in this instance where such glass plate is being used as a lens in a pair of glasses (See for example Figure 5 of Kim et al.).
Applicant argues that, with respect to Claim 6, Kim et al. fails to teach or reasonably suggest ‘…at least a portion of a second reflective surface that last reflects into a user's view along the optical path has a reflectivity of 3% or more.’ since such value is neither inherent or obvious from Kim et al. Again, it is noted that the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, assuming absorption losses in the optical system to be somewhat negligible, the reflective surface having a reflectivity of 3% or more means that that same surface has a transmission of 97% or less, by law of conservation of energy. Given the general conditions present, Applicant has not provided any evidence to show that adjusting the reflectivity of the reflective surface to be any value from 3% to less than 100% (since that particular reflective surface must have some transmission to allow for viewing of the external environment as required by Kim et al.) would not have been obvious in view of providing adjustment in the amount of display light and the amount of external environment light to be routed to the user’s eyes.
Finally, Applicant argues that, with respect to Claim 7, Kim et al. fails to teach or reasonably suggest ‘…the optical plate is made of a high refractive material with a refractive index of 1.6 or more.’ since the stated motivation was merely conclusory and not supported by Kim et al. Again, it is noted that the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Applicant argues that the instant application requires such refractive index range since it lowers the critical angle for total internal reflection inside the plate, leading to additional advantages. However, the Examiner notes that this consideration appears to be irrelevant and inconsistent with Applicant’s previous arguments, since Claim 1 specifically requires that ‘…the optical path does not include a path reflected from an outer surface of the optical plate.’, and that Applicant has already argued that the instant application does not use total internal reflection since it forms an optical path exclusively by way of the embedded reflective surfaces within the optical plate, without any reflection from the outer surfaces of the optical plate (See Section B(1), Pages 17-18 of Applicant’s response filed 6/29/2026). Further, Applicant has not provided any evidence to show that it would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have the optical plate be made of a high refractive index material with a refractive index of 1.6 or greater, such as polycarbonate, flint glass, or sapphire (all known materials of the art).
Claims 1-7, 9-11, 15 are now rejected as follows.
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.
Claims 6, 9-11 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 6 recites the limitation ‘a user’s view’ in line 3. However, Claim 1, line 10 also recites the limitation ‘a user’s view’. This appears to be problematic, since it is not clear whether the view in Claim 6 is to refer to that in Claim 1, or to a separate, unique view now previously recited. Correction is required.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the distance (sag)" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 9, the phrase "(sag)" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) in parentheses are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the z axis" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the coefficient" in lines 10-11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the maximum polynomial degree" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the curvature" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the distance (sag)" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 10, the phrase "(sag)" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) in parentheses are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the z axis" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11, line 7- ‘Here’ should read ‘where’
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) 1-2, 4-5, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (KR 10-2015-0095342 A), of record.
Kim et al. discloses an optical device (See for example Abstract; Figures 1-9) for augmented reality, comprising an optical plate (See for example 162 in Figure 3) onto which light emitted from a display (See for example 150, 160 in Figure 3) is incident; and a reflective surface (See for example 163, 164 in Figure 3, each having planar shape) having a shape of one or more free-form surfaces, one or more aspherical surfaces, one or more parabolic surfaces, or one or more conical surfaces, the reflective surface being contained in the optical plate, or a reflective surface having a shape of one or more free-form surfaces, one or more aspherical surfaces, one or more parabolic surfaces, or one or more conical surfaces, the reflective surface being contained in the optical plate and having a shape of one or more planar surfaces or one or more spherical surfaces; wherein the emitted light forms a predetermined optical path by the reflective surface and is guided into a user's view (See ‘L1’ in Figure 3), and the optical path does not include a path reflected from an outer surface of the optical plate (See Figure 3). Kim et al. further discloses glasses (See for example Figures 1-3) including the optical apparatus for augmented reality as set forth above, wherein a display (See for example 120 in Figure 1; 150, 160 in Figure 3) is located on one side of the glasses, and an optical path is formed in a horizontal or vertical direction of the glasses (See for example Figure 1; ‘L1’ in Figure 3); the optical plate is made up of a plurality of subplates (See for example the three pieces of 162 separated by elements 163, 164 in Figure 3) stacked in a thickness direction (In the instant case, a thickness direction may be taken to be in the y-direction as shown in Figure 3), {and the subplates are formed by processing reflective surfaces with inverse shapes on surfaces facing other subplates, and then applying a reflective coating film to the reflective surfaces, to join the subplates so that a pair of opposing reflective surfaces are in contact with each other} (It is noted that the limitations in curly brackets are believed to be a process limitation that does not impart any recognizable distinguishing characteristic to the final product.
“Process limitations cannot impart patentability to product claim where product is not patentably distinguished over prior art.” In re Dike, 157 USPQ 581 (CCPA 1968).
It is well-settled that the “[p]resence of process limitations in product claims, which product does not otherwise patentably distinguish over prior art, cannot impart patentability to that product.” In re Stephens, 345 F.2d 1020 (CCPA 1965), 145 USPQ 565, citing Dilnot. Thus, the limitations in curly brackets have not been given significant patentable weight. See also MPEP 2113.); wherein among two or more reflective surfaces, a first reflective surface that first reflects the emitted light has a higher reflectivity than other reflective surfaces other than the first reflective surface (In the instant case, in Figure 3, the first mirror 163 is totally reflecting and the second mirror 164 is partially reflecting to allow light from the environment to also pass through to the user’s field of view); and the first reflective surface that first reflects the emitted light has a reflectivity of 30% or more (In the instant case, in Figure 3, the first mirror 163 is totally reflecting).
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al.
Kim et al. discloses the invention as set forth above, and further discloses the reflective surface is arranged to form the optical path within the optical plate (See for example Figure 3), which may be an optical lens for glasses or spectacles. Kim et al. does not explicitly disclose the optical plate being 5-12 mm in thickness. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the optical plate be 5-12 mm in thickness, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to have the optical plate be 5-12 mm in thickness, to provide adequate mechanical thickness of the glass plate for mechanical rigidity/stability. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Claim(s) 6, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al.
Kim et al. discloses the invention as set forth above, and further discloses, in Figure 3, the first mirror 163 is totally reflecting and the second mirror 164 is partially reflecting to allow light from the environment to also pass through to the user’s field of view. Kim et al. does not explicitly disclose among two or more reflective surfaces, at least a portion of a second reflective surface that last reflects into the user's view along the optical path has a reflectivity of 3% or more. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have among the two or more reflective surfaces, at least a portion of a second reflective surface that last reflects into the user's view along the optical path has a reflectivity of 3% or more, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to have among the two or more reflective surfaces, at least a portion of a second reflective surface that last reflects into the user's view along the optical path has a reflectivity of 3% or more, to allow for adjustment in the amount of display light and the amount of environment light the user is able to see in the user’s field of view. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al.
Kim et al. discloses the invention as set forth above, but does not explicitly disclose the optical plate is made of a high refractive material with a refractive index of 1.6 or more. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the optical plate be made of a high refractive material with a refractive index of 1.6 or more, such as polycarbonate, flint glass, sapphire, since it has been held to be within the ordinary skill of worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. One would have been motivated to have the optical plate be made of a high refractive material with a refractive index of 1.6 or more, such as polycarbonate, flint glass, sapphire, to allow for adjustments in the thickness and weight of the optical plate to be used, based on the intended application. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (195).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 12-14, 15/8, 15/12, 15/13, 15/14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 9-11, 15/9, 15/10, 15/11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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 ARNEL C LAVARIAS whose telephone number is (571)272-2315. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30 AM-7 PM.
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
ARNEL C. LAVARIAS
Primary Examiner
Group Art Unit 2872
7/17/2026
/ARNEL C LAVARIAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights