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 originally filed drawings were received on 11/23/2023. These drawings are objected to for the following informalities as set forth below.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
Figure 6- Reference numeral 62.
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.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. Examples of such errors are set forth below.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 9, line 1- ‘Hereinafter, Hereinafter,’ should read ‘Hereinafter,’
It is general USPTO policy that specific references to claim numbers not be included within the specification of the disclosure, since claims will generally change, either in presence, content, or scope, during the prosecution of the application. Such changes may render the specification unclear or indefinite. Specific instances in the instant application include:
Page 5, line 23
Page 7, line 12.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-15 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 the limitation "the user’s view" in lines 14-15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1, line 16 recites the limitation ‘the surface’. However, Claim 1 also recites the following surfaces: a reflective surface (lines 4, 6-7, 7-8, 10-11, 14), one or more free-form surfaces (lines 4-5, 8-9), one or more aspherical surfaces (lines 5, 9), one or more parabolic surfaces (lines 5-6, 9-10), one or more conical surfaces (line 6, 10), one or more planar surfaces (line 12), one or more spherical surfaces (line 12). This appears to be problematic, since it is not clear whether the surface in line 16 is to refer to one of the other recited surfaces, or to a separate, unique surface not previously recited. Correction is required.
Claims 2-15 are dependent on Claim 1, and hence inherit the deficiencies of Claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the thickness direction" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the opposing reflective surfaces" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5, line 3- ‘at least some a’ should read ‘a’
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the two or more reflective surfaces" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9, line 11- ‘here’ should read ‘where’
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the distance (sag)" in line 11. 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 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the surface" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the coefficient" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the maximum polynomial degree" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the curvature" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the basic sphere" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10, line 7- ‘here’ should read ‘where’.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the distance (sag)" in line 7. 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 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the surface" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the vertex curvature" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the Conic constant" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the coefficient" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 13-14 are dependent on Claim 10, and hence inherit the deficiencies of Claim 10.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the form" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11, line 8- ‘here’ should read ‘where’
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the two or more reflective surfaces" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the first, second, and 3b reflective surfaces" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the 3a and 3c reflective surfaces" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the first, second, 3a, 3b, and 3c reflective surfaces" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the horizontal or vertical direction" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 is dependent on Claims 1-14, and hence inherit the deficiencies of Claims 1-14.
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, 8, 15, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (KR 10-2015-0095342 A).
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 a 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 the 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 the 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); 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); and 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 (See for example 163, 164 in Figure 3, each having planar shape); .
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, 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 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 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. 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, 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, 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 9-14, 15/9, 15/10, 15/11, 15/12, 15/13, 15/14 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2025/0237864 A1 to Park et al.
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
11/3/2025
/ARNEL C LAVARIAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872