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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 15, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed July 15, 2026, with respect to claim rejections under 112 and 101 have been fully considered and in combination with the amendments are persuasive. The claim rejections under 112 and 101 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to prior art rejections of claim 19 (and its dependents) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed July 15, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument center on the combination of Richards as modified by Pretorius (or Dewa) failing to disclose wherein the primary optical element and the secondary optical element are each bilaterally symmetric, the examiner is unpersuaded. Richards’ first and second cylindrical liquid crystal lenses (LCL’s) 202A and 202B are commensurate with the claimed primary and secondary optical element, as set forth below. It would necessarily flow, i.e. be inherent1, that the cylindrical LCL’s would be bilaterally symmetric, since, by definition a cylindrical lens is bilaterally symmetric and further figure 3 shows cylindrical axes 202A and 202B intersecting the optical axis 222. Even further, if the lenses were not bilaterally symmetric the device would not function properly, i.e. it would fail to correct for astigmatism and instead add a new distortion to the image2.
Regarding applicant’s argument center on the combination of Richards as modified by Pretorius (or Dewa) failing to disclose wherein the primary optical element and the secondary optical element have air gap between them, the examiner is unpersuaded. Richards’ first and second cylindrical liquid crystal lenses (LCL’s) 202A and 202B in figure 3 are commensurate with the claimed primary and secondary optical element, as set forth below. Figure 3 shows an air gap between said commensurate lenses.
For clarity, Richards figure 2 shows a single cylindrical LCL (202) and discusses various means for rotating its cylindrical axis (220), including electrically controlling the axis and/or using a rotational actuator (inter alia paragraph [0010]). Figure 3 shows two cylindrical LCL’s (202A & 202B) and paragraph [0031] makes it clear that said two cylindrical LCL’s may have their respective cylindrical axes (220A & 220B) manipulated by the same means as said single cylindrical LCL (202) of figure 2. That is to say, 202A and 202B rotate using the same means as 202 including actuator 204. Further, in arguendo, Pretorius teaches a similar optical module (e.g. optical system 7) including a primary and secondary optical elements (LE1 & LE2) having a cylindrical optical properties (paragraph [0109]) that rotate their cylindrical axis relative to each other (paragraph [0109] “the first lens unit LE1A and the second lens unit LE2A are embodied to be rotatable relative to one another”); and further teaches using a drive unit (10) to rotate the cylindrical lenses (paragraph [0109]).
Specification
As previously noted, 35 U.S.C. 112(a) requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a). The examiner respectfully notes the specification appears to possibly be partially generated by a large language model system and is replete with technical errors. The specification is articulate with proper grammatical structure and easy to read. However, it also has technical errors, particularly the interaction of polarized light with polarization elements that are rotated. For example, paragraph [0034] recites: “For instance, waveplate surface 130 may include a quarter waveplate having an axis oriented at 45° relative to the direction of the polarization of light 205 such that waveplate surface 130 changes the linearly polarized light 205 to circularly polarized light 210.” This is correct, to transform linear light to circular light the waveplate needs to be at 45°, as noted in previous correspondence with evidence. However, in describing the (withdrawn) embodiment seen in figure 4 paragraph [0043-44] has the primary optic include a waveplate that is rotated. If the waveplate is rotated away from 45° the linear polarized light is not converted to circular light, thereby destroying the display function. A further example is paragraph [0022] statement: “The discussion associated with FIGS. 1-4 includes a description of pancake lens architectures having adjustable cylindrical power and featuring real-time astigmatism correction.” Rotating elements 104 and 106 in figure 1A-1C this would cause the waveplates to be misaligned and even more egregious the reflective linear polarizing beamsplitter would be misaligned. These are only a few examples, and as noted above the specification is replete with technical errors.
As previously noted in a general discussion that there are significant problems with this application. The inventive concept is to combine correction for astigmatism by rotating two lenses with cylindrical power with a folded (aka pancake) near to eye display. The problem arises when the lenses being rotated to correct for the astigmatism (figure 3) are coated with l/4 waveplate coatings (130 & 140) and/or a reflective polarizer coating (142). These two polarizing elements are rotationally sensitive, as noted in earlier correspondence with evidence. Figures 1A-1C show three embodiments of a folded/pancake near to eye display without cylindrical power, where the optical path is illustrated in figure 2. Applicant has elected the species seen in figure 1A, where the primary lens (104) is coated with l/4 waveplate coating (130) and half mirror coating (132) and the secondary lens (106) is coated with l/4 waveplate coating (140) and a reflective polarization beamsplitter coating (142). For astigmatic correction applicant has elected the two-lens system in figure 3 shows correction for astigmatism by rotating two lenses with cylindrical power but having no coatings. These two systems could be placed in series, i.e. inserting a correction module into a near to eye display would work, however, this configuration is not claimed or described in the specification and would be prohibited new matter if claimed/added. The specification clearly indicates that the coated primary and secondary optic have cylindrical power and are rotated to correct for astigmatism, for example the title indicates the invention is “insert-free”, paragraph [0016] “it would be advantageous to provide a pancake lens architecture having prescription correction including tunable astigmatism correction”, paragraph [0017]: “This approach obviates the use of separate, discrete focusing elements to correct for astigmatism”, paragraph [0022] “The discussion associated with FIGS. 1-4 includes a description of pancake lens architectures having adjustable cylindrical power and featuring real-time astigmatism correction” and paragraph [0045] “As disclosed herein, a pancake optical module may be configured to provide astigmatism correction without additional optical elements added to the optical module.” To be blunt, incorporating cylindrical power into the primary and secondary optics (figures 1A-C elements 104 & 106) and rotating said elements (figure 3) would destroy the display function. Any combination having rotation of a l/4 waveplate coatings and/or a reflective polarizer coating in a pancake/folded optical system will be treated as a non-functioning device.
To overcome this objection the examiner respectfully suggests removing all language, figures and/or numerical references in figures that indicate that the HUD uses a pancake/folded optics architecture. Further, if applicant chooses this path, it is respectfully suggested that the title be changed to a more descriptive title that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed, such as “Astigmatic Corrective Lens Assembly in a Head Mounted Display.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-10, 12-13, 19, 21, 24, 26 and 28 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because the specification, while being enabling for an optical module passing an image from a display through rotatable cylindrical lenses (for astigmia correction) where the rotatable cylindrical lenses which do not include a pancake/folded optics architecture and a method of using said optical module, does not reasonably provide enablement for an optical module passing an image from a display through rotatable cylindrical lenses (for astigmia correction) where the rotatable cylindrical lenses including a pancake/folded optics architecture and a method of using said optical module. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make or use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
Regarding claims 1 and 19 (and their respective dependent claims), the scope of the claims currently covers both a functioning device and a non-functioning device. As previously discussed in interviews and set forth in the Office action of April 15, 2026 (see at least pages 2-4 and 6-8) and noted above – integrating the polarization elements of a pancake/folded optics system onto rotating cylindrical lenses will not function. However, a non-folded optical system, i.e. having the image transmitted directly from an electronic display through optical element(s) to the user’s eye, would function. However, the scope of the claims currently cover both functioning and non-functioning embodiments. The examiner respectfully suggests inserting language to eliminate pancake/folded optics architecture or otherwise makes it clear that the claim does not include pancake/folded optics architecture – in as far as such a change would be supported by the specification as originally filed, or, alternatively, applicant could consider cancelling the claims.
Claims 13 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 13 and 23 “wherein the one or more motors drive axial movement of the lens assembly and the/an electronic display to vary a working distance between the lens assembly and the electronic display” amounts to prohibited new matter. The specification has no indication that a motor is attached to the electronic display or that the electronic display moves. See below for interpretation.
Claims 13 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because the specification, while being enabling for “wherein the one or more motors drive axial movement of the lens assembly to vary a working distance between the lens assembly and the electronic display”, does not reasonably provide enablement for “wherein the one or more motors drive axial movement of the lens assembly and the/an electronic display to vary a working distance between the lens assembly and the electronic display”. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make or use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. While the specification ubiquitously sets forth that the motor(s) are coupled to the both the primary and the secondary optical elements to rotate said elements. In addition to rotating said elements the specification paragraph [0040] notes said motor(s) can move said elements along the optical axis, thereby varying the space between said elements (i.e. gap g) and/or varying the distance to the electronic display (i.e. working distance WD). The specification has no indication that a motor is attached to the electronic display or that the electronic display moves. For purposes of examination the examiner will use “wherein the one or more motors drive axial movement of the lens assembly an electronic display” in claim 233.
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 12, 16-18, 23 and 27 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 12 “the one or more motors are coupled to at least the primary optical element or the secondary optical element and drives axial movement of the at least one of the primary optical element or the secondary optical element to vary a distance between the primary optical element and the secondary optical element” particularly the “or” raises clarity issues. Claim 1 requires both the primary and the secondary optical elements to be coupled to the one or more motors. It is unclear if the one or more motors is only coupled to one optical element (causing a conflict of structural limits of a base claim) or if applicant is just allowing at least one optical element to also move along the optical axis (assumed). The examiner suggests and for purposes of examination will use “the one or more motors further drives an axial movement of the at least one of the primary optical element or the secondary optical element to vary a distance between the primary optical element and the secondary optical element.”
Regarding claim 16 “the optical axis” has antecedent issues. It is unclear if the optical axis is referring to a previously introduced axis, such as the primary cylinder axis, or if it is a new/different element (assumed). The examiner suggests and for purposes of examination will use in lines 4-5 “… the primary optical element about [[the]] an optical axis to a first alignment direction …”
Claims 17-18, 23 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite, since they depend on claim 16 and therefore have the same deficiencies.
Regarding claim 23, insofar as it is understood, “wherein the one or more motors drive axial movement of the lens assembly an electronic display” raises clarity issues. It is unclear if an electronic display is required or not. In the case where an electronic display is required, and assuming an unclaimed structural/functional relationship between the lens assembly and the electronic display based on the specification, the claim essentially duplicates claim 13. Further, it is unclear if the entire lens assembly is axially moved or if one optical element in the lens assembly is moved or either is being claimed. The examiner’s best guess, in light of paragraph [0040], is that a function of axially movement of the primary optical element and/or the secondary optical element is being claimed. The examiner suggests and for purposes of examination will use “wherein the one or more motors further drives an axial movement of at least one of the primary optical element or the secondary optical element
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 4 the sole limitation “wherein the primary optical element and the secondary optical element are each bilaterally symmetric” is already required by claim 1 in lines 13-14 and therefore fails to further limit the invention.
Regarding claim 10 the sole limitation “wherein the primary optical element is spaced away from the secondary optical element” is already required by claim 1 in line 15 and therefore fails to further limit the invention.
Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims comply with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 16 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nauche et al. US Patent Application Publication 2016/0331226.
Regarding claim 16 Nauche discloses a lens assembly (title e.g. figures 1-3 visual compensation system 10) comprising: one or more motors (e.g. first and second motors 42 & 44); a primary optical element (e.g. first rotatable optical element 2) having a cylindrical surface profile (inter alia paragraph [0061] “2 is cylindrically convex in shape”) defining a primary cylinder axis (e.g. axis Y1), wherein the one or more motors (e.g. 42) are coupled to (e.g. via first cog 22 & first worm screw 32), and rotate (inter alia abstract “first rotatable optical element”), the primary optical element (e.g. 2) about an optical axis (e.g. axis X) to a first alignment direction (inter alia paragraph [0013] “first optical element rotatable with a rotary movement centered on the optical axis and having a first cylindrical power along the optical axis”); and a secondary optical element (e.g. second rotatable optical element 4) having a cylindrical surface profile (inter alia paragraph [0061] “4 is cylindrically convex in shape”) defining a secondary cylinder axis (e.g. e.g. axis Y2), wherein the one or more motors (e.g. 44) are coupled to (e.g. via second cog 24 & second worm screw 34), and rotate (inter alia abstract “second rotatable optical element”), the secondary optical element (e.g. 4) about the optical axis (e.g. X) to a second alignment direction (inter alia paragraph [0013] “a second optical element rotatable with a rotary movement centered on the optical axis and having a second cylindrical power along the optical axis”), wherein: the primary optical element (e.g. 2) and the secondary optical element (e.g. 4) are each bilaterally symmetric (inherent feature of a cylindrically shaped lens, see figures 1-2); the primary optical element (e.g. 2) is spaced away from the secondary optical element (e.g. 4) by an air gap (see figures 1-2), the air gap arranged such that the primary optical element (e.g. 2) and the secondary optical element (e.g. 4) are independently rotatable about the optical axis (inter alia paragraph [0014] “first optical element and the second optical element may be independently rotatable”); the at least one or more motors (e.g. 42 & 44) are coupled to (e.g. via 22 & 32 and 24 & 34, respectively), and rotate (inter alia abstract), at least one of the primary optical element (e.g. 2) and the secondary optical element (e.g. 4) about the optical axis (e.g. X) relative to one another to a predetermined inter-element angle to tune an astigmatism correction of an image light (inter alia paragraph [0072] “By controlling the rotational position of the convex planar-cylindrical lens 2 and the rotational position of the concave planar-cylindrical lens 4, independently of one another, as described hereinafter, it is possible to independently vary each of the angles α1, α2 from 0° to 360° and thus obtain an adjustable cylindrical power C” where C is a cylindrical power correction); and the primary optical element (e.g. 2) and the secondary optical element (e.g. 4) are aligned to a fixed point of reference, the fixed point of reference in a plane perpendicular to the optical axis, to control an effective cylindrical axis of the astigmatism correction (axiomatic).
Regarding claim 27 Nauche discloses the lens assembly of claim 16, as set forth above. Nauche further discloses wherein the primary optical element (e.g. 2) and the secondary optical element (e.g. 4) are freely and reversible rotated through an angular range of 0 to 2p radians (paragraph [0072] “the rotational position of the convex planar-cylindrical lens 2 and the rotational position of the concave planar-cylindrical lens 4, independently of one another, as described hereinafter, it is possible to independently vary each of the angles α1, α2 from 0° to 360°”).
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-10, 19, 21 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richards et al. US Patent Application Publication 2019/0265514, of record, in view of Pretorius US Patent Application Publication 2023/0324660, of record, with as certain facts evidenced by MIL-HDBK-141 “Military Standardization Handbook Optical Design” October 1962, page 8-15, of record, and Wikipedia webpage “Lens” as of 2023, of record.
Regarding claim 1 Richards discloses an optical module (title e.g. figure 5 display system 402) comprising: an electronic display (e.g. display 502) configured to project image light (axiomatic) along an optical axis (e.g. optical axis 222); and a lens assembly (e.g. lens assembly 104) aligned with the optical axis (e.g. see figure 5), the lens assembly (note: various details of 104 are in figures 2-3) comprising: one or more motors (e.g. rotational actuator 204); a primary optical element having a cylindrical optical property (e.g. first cylindrical liquid crystal lens 202A) defining a primary cylinder axis (e.g. first cylindrical axis/first meridian 220A), wherein the one or more motors (e.g. 204) are coupled to, and rotate, the primary optical element (e.g. 202A) about the optical axis (e.g. 222) to a first alignment direction (inter alia paragraph [0031] notes 202A has 220A with rotationally adjustability similar as 202 in figure 2, disclosed in paragraph [0029] that “202 may be coupled to rotational actuator 204 such that cylindrical LCL 202 (and, consequently, cylindrical axis 220) may be rotated about an optical axis 222 of an optical system”); and a secondary optical element (e.g. second cylindrical liquid crystal lens 202B) having a cylindrical optical property (e.g. second cylindrical liquid crystal lens 202B) defining a secondary cylinder axis (e.g. second cylindrical axis 220B), wherein the one or more motors (e.g. 204) are coupled to, and rotate, the secondary optical element about the optical axis to a second alignment direction (inter alia paragraph [0031] notes 202B has 220B with rotationally adjustability similar as 202 in figure 2, disclosed in paragraph [0029] that “202 may be coupled to rotational actuator 204 such that cylindrical LCL 202 (and, consequently, cylindrical axis 220) may be rotated about an optical axis 222 of an optical system”), wherein: the primary optical element (e.g. 202A) and the secondary optical element (e.g. 202B) are each bilaterally symmetric (implicit for a cylindrical lens, see figure 3); the primary optical element (e.g. 202A) is spaced away from the secondary optical element (e.g. 202B) by an air gap (see figure 3), the air gap arranged such that the primary optical element and the secondary optical element are independently rotatable about the optical axis (implicit given each lens is controlled by separate cylindrical power control signals 212A and 212B); the one or more motors are coupled to, and rotate, at least one of the primary optical element and the secondary optical element about the optical axis (as set forth above) relative to one another to a predetermined inter-element angle to tune an astigmatism correction of the image light (inter alia paragraph [0004] “instant disclosure describes systems and methods for astigmatic correction, such as what might be used in a head-mounted display”); and the primary optical element and the secondary optical element are aligned to a fixed point of reference, the fixed point of reference in a plane perpendicular to the optical axis, to control an effective cylindrical axis of the astigmatism correction (inter alia paragraph [0004] “instant disclosure describes systems and methods for astigmatic correction, such as what might be used in a head-mounted display”).
Richards does not disclose the cylindrical optical properties are due to a cylindrical surface profile.
Pretorius teaches a similar optical module (e.g. optical system 7) that may be used in a display (paragraph [0002]) which includes a display (e.g. display 5), a primary optical element having a cylindrical optical property (e.g. first lens unit LE1A paragraph [0109] “LE1A is embodied as a first cylindrical lens unit”), a secondary optical element having a cylindrical optical property (e.g. second lens unit LE2A paragraph [0109] “LE2A is embodied as a second cylindrical lens unit”) that rotate their cylindrical axis relative to each other (paragraph [0109] “the first lens unit LE1A and the second lens unit LE2A are embodied to be rotatable relative to one another”) to correct astigmatism (paragraph [0109] last sentence); and further teaches the primary and secondary optical elements (e.g. LE1A & LE2A) have a curved profile (paragraph [0109] “embodied as a … cylindrical lens” see figure 7). This would be a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007), see MPEP 2143. One would be motivated to substitute the cylindrical liquid crystal lenses of Richards with the cylindrical lenses of Pretorius because it would simplify the optical module. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the cylindrical liquid crystal lenses as disclosed by Richards with the cylindrical lenses taught by Pretorius for the purpose of simplifying the optical module and since this would be a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claim 2 the combination of Richards as modified by Pretorius discloses the optical module of claim 1, as set forth above. Richards further discloses wherein the one or more motors comprise a first motor coupled to the primary optical element and rotates the primary optical element about the optical axis independently of the secondary optical element, and a second motor coupled to the secondary optical element and rotates the secondary optical element about the optical axis independently of the primary optical element (as set forth above inter alia paragraph [0031] notes 202A & 202B have 220A & 220B with rotationally adjustability similar as 202 in figure 2, disclosed in paragraph [0029] that “202 may be coupled to rotational actuator 204 such that cylindrical LCL 202 (and, consequently, cylindrical axis 220) may be rotated about an optical axis 222 of an optical system”) indicating that there are two motors that are each independently controlled by first and second cylindrical power control signals 212A and 212B, respectively).
Regarding claim 3 the combination of Richards as modified by Pretorius discloses the optical module of claim 1, as set forth above. Richards does not disclose wherein the primary optical element and the secondary optical element each comprise an aspherical surface profile and each respective cylindrical surface profile is merged with each respective aspherical surface profile.
Pretorius further teaches the primary optical element (e.g. first lens unit LE1A) and the secondary optical element (e.g. second lens unit LE2A) each comprise a spherical surface profile and each respective cylindrical surface profile is merged with each respective spherical surface profile (paragraph [0034] “The first lens unit has a first spherical power and/or a first cylindrical power. By contrast, the second lens unit has a second spherical power and/or a second cylindrical power. Further, at least one of the following features holds true: (a) the first spherical power is different from the second spherical power; (b) the first cylindrical power is different from the second cylindrical power”) for the purpose of correcting vision defects (paragraph [0012] including myopia, hyperopia or an astigmatic vision defect of variable power and axis (paragraph [0010]). 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 optical module as disclosed by the combination of Richards as modified by Pretorius to have merged the cylindrical surface profiles with spherical surface profile as further taught by Pretorius for the purpose of correcting vision defects, such as myopia, hyperopia as well as astigmatism.
Pretorius does not teach the rotationally symmetric power (e.g. spherical power) has rotationally symmetric aspherical component, as further required by the claim. The examiner takes Official Notice4 that incorporating an aspherical component into a lens is well-known for the purpose of correcting for color and Petzval field curvature aberrations, as evidenced by as evidenced by the Military Standardization Handbook Optical Design MIL-HNDK-141 page 8-155. 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 optical module as disclosed by the combination of Richards as modified by Pretorius to incorporate a rotationally symmetric aspherical component for the well-known purpose of correcting for color and Petzval field curvature aberrations.
Regarding claim 4 the combination of Richards as modified by Pretorius discloses the optical module of claim 1, as set forth above. Richards further discloses wherein the primary optical element (e.g. 202A) and the secondary optical element (e.g. 202B) are each bilaterally symmetric (implicit for a cylindrical lens, see figure 3).
Regarding claim 5 the combination of Richards as modified by Pretorius discloses the optical module of claim 1, as set forth above. Richards and Pretorius are silent regarding the amount of optical correction/power. Specifically, Richards and Pretorius do not disclose or teach the cylindrical surface profile of the primary optical element and the cylindrical surface profile of the secondary optical element each comprise approximately 2.5 D of cylindrical power. However, 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, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case the combination of Richards as modified by Pretorius has a pair of lenses with cylindrical power where the cylindrical axis are rotated to correct for an astigmatism, fulfilling the general conditions of the claim. One would be motivated to have each lens comprise approximately 2.5 D of cylindrical power for the purpose of having sufficient correction power. 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 optical module as disclosed by the combination of Richards as modified by Pretorius to have each optical element comprise approximately 2.5 D of cylindrical power for the purpose of having sufficient correction power and since discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 7 the combination of Richards as modified by Pretorius discloses the optical module of claim 1, as set forth above. Richards further discloses wherein the first and the second alignment directions are substantially orthogonal to the optical axis (see figure 3).
Regarding claim 9 the combination of Richards as modified by Pretorius discloses the optical module of claim 1, as set forth above. Richards and Pretorius do not disclose or teach wherein the primary optical element and the secondary optical element each comprise a meniscus lens. The combination of Richards as modified by Pretorius discloses the claimed invention including rotatable optical elements having a cylindrical axis except for the overall shape of the lenses being a meniscus shape. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use a meniscus shape since applicant has not disclosed that a meniscus shape solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with a different shape (e.g. plano-convex, plano-concave, biconcave, biconvex, etc.). The examiner takes Official notice6 that a meniscus shape is well-known in the art and one would be motivated to use this shape since it minimizes aberration in corrective lenses (as evidenced by Wikipedia see second page “Type of simple lenses” section first paragraph last two sentences). 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 optical module as disclosed by the combination of Richards as modified by Pretorius to have the overall shape of the lenses being a meniscus shape for the purpose of minimizes aberration in corrective lenses.
Regarding claim 10 the combination of Richards as modified by Pretorius discloses the optical module of claim 1, as set forth above. Richards further discloses wherein the primary optical element (e.g. 202A) is spaced away (see figure 3) from the secondary optical element (e.g. 202B).
Regarding claim 21 the combination of Richards as modified by Pretorius discloses the optical module of claim 1, as set forth above. Richards further discloses the combination of Richards as modified by Pretorius discloses the optical module of claim 1, as set forth above. Richards further discloses wherein the one or more motors are coupled to, and rotate, the primary optical element about the optical axis while the secondary optical element remains fixed in rotational orientation about the optical axis (inter alia paragraphs [0032] discusses adjusting 220A & 220B using cylindrical power control signals 212A & 212B to generate “an overall desired cylindrical power oriented along a desired cylindrical axis via a combination of the first and second cylindrical powers”).
Regarding claims 19 and 24, the examiner notes that the method of claims 19 and 24 are the process of operating the device of claim 1 and 21, respectively (rejected as set forth above). Under normal operation and under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986) see MPEP 2112. Therefore the claims 19 and 24 are rejected as inherent, since they are the method of operating the device of claim 1 and 21, respectively.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richards et al. US Patent Application Publication 2019/0265514, of record, in view of Pretorius US Patent Application Publication 2023/0324660, of record, and in further view of Dewa et al. US Patent Application Publication 2023/0137707, of record.
Regarding claims 12-13 the combination of Richards as modified by Pretorius discloses the optical module of claim 1, as set forth above. Richards and Pretorius do not disclose or teach wherein the one or more motors further drives an axial movement of the at least one of the primary optical element or the secondary optical element to vary a distance between the primary optical element and the secondary optical element, as required by claim 12; or wherein the one or more motors drive axial movement of the lens assembly to vary a working distance between the lens assembly and the electronic display, as required by claim 13.
Dewa teaches a similar invention (see figure 1) including directing image light through a system including motors (e.g. first and second actuators 52A & 52B) lens pair with first and second lenses (60A & 60B) that are rotated relative to each other to correct for astigmatism, which is equivalent to using cylinder pairs to correct for astigmatism (paragraph [0043]); and further teaches the spacing between lenses (abstract e.g. figures 2A-2B distances D1 & D2 paragraph [0035] “axially along optical axis”) and the working distance (abstract e.g. distance between lenses & substrate 20) for the purpose of focusing the image (paragraphs [0027 & 0032]). Further, it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art, In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954), see MPEP 2144.04.V. 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 optical module as disclosed by the combination of Richards as modified by Pretorius to have the separation distance between lenses and the working distance be adjustable as taught by Dewa for the purpose of focusing the image and since the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nauche et al. US Patent Application Publication 2016/0331226 with as certain facts evidenced by MIL-HDBK-141 “Military Standardization Handbook Optical Design” October 1962, page 8-15, of record.
Regarding claim 17 Nauche discloses the lens assembly of claim 16, as set forth above. Nauche does not disclose the cylindrical surface profile of the primary optical element and the cylindrical surface profile of the secondary optical element each comprise approximately 2.5 D of cylindrical power. However, 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, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case, Nauche has a pair of lenses with cylindrical power where the cylindrical axis are rotated to correct for an astigmatism, fulfilling the general conditions of the claim. One would be motivated to have each lens comprise approximately 2.5 D of cylindrical power for the purpose of having sufficient correction power. 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 lens assembly as disclosed by Nauche to have each optical element comprise approximately 2.5 D of cylindrical power for the purpose of having sufficient correction power and since discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 18 Nauche discloses the lens assembly of claim 16, as set forth above. Nauche does not disclose wherein the primary optical element and the secondary optical element each comprise an aspherical surface profile and each respective cylindrical surface profile is merged with each respective aspherical surface profile. The examiner takes Official Notice that incorporating an aspherical component into a lens is well known for the purpose of correcting for color and Petzval field curvature aberrations, as evidenced by as evidenced by the Military Standardization Handbook Optical Design MIL-HNDK-141 page 8-157. 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 lens assembly as disclosed by Nauche to incorporate a rotationally symmetric aspherical component for the well-known purpose of correcting for color and Petzval field curvature aberrations.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nauche et al. US Patent Application Publication 2016/0331226 in view of Dewa et al. US Patent Application Publication 2023/0137707, of record.
Regarding claim 23 Nauche discloses the lens assembly of claim 16, as set forth above. Nauche does not disclose wherein the one or more motors further drives an axial movement of at least one of the primary optical element or the secondary optical element.
Dewa teaches a similar invention (see figure 1) including directing image light through a system including motors (e.g. first and second actuators 52A & 52B) lens pair with first and second lenses (60A & 60B) that are rotated relative to each other to correct for astigmatism, which is equivalent to using cylinder pairs to correct for astigmatism (paragraph [0043]); and further teaches the moving the lenses axially (abstract e.g. figures 2A-2B distances D1 & D2 paragraph [0035] “axially along optical axis” e.g. distance between lenses & substrate 20) for the purpose of focusing the image (paragraphs [0027 & 0032]). Further, it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art, In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954), see MPEP 2144.04.V. 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 lens assembly as disclosed by Nauche to have the axial positions of the primary and/or secondary optical elements be adjustable as taught by Dewa for the purpose of focusing the image and since the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art.
Claims 26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richards et al. US Patent Application Publication 2019/0265514, of record, in view of Pretorius US Patent Application Publication 2023/0324660, of record, and in further view of Nauche et al. US Patent Application Publication 2016/0331226.
Regarding claim 26 the combination of Richards as modified by Pretorius discloses the optical module of claim 1, as set forth above. Richards and Pretorius do not disclose or teach the primary optical element and the secondary optical element are freely and reversible rotated through an angular range of 0 to 2p radians.
Nauche teaches a similar device, as set forth above, and further teaches wherein the primary optical element (e.g. 2) and the secondary optical element (e.g. 4) are freely and reversible rotated through an angular range of 0 to 2p radians (paragraph [0072] “the rotational position of the convex planar-cylindrical lens 2 and the rotational position of the concave planar-cylindrical lens 4, independently of one another, as described hereinafter, it is possible to independently vary each of the angles α1, α2 from 0° to 360°”) for the purpose of having the cylindrical power at any angle of astigmatism (paragraph [0072]). 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 optical module as disclosed by the combination of Richards as modified by Pretorius to have the primary and the secondary optical elements are freely and reversible rotated through an angular range of 0 to 2p radians as taught by Nauche for the purpose of having the cylindrical power at any angle of astigmatism.
Regarding claim 28, the examiner notes that the method of claim 28 is the process of operating the device of claim 26 (rejected as set forth above). Under normal operation and under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986) see MPEP 2112. Therefore the claim 28 is rejected as inherent, since it is the method of operating the device of claim 26.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Noda et al. US Patent Application Publication 2005/0018134; in regards to a lens assembly (e.g. figures 8-9 astigmatism canceling optical element 61 & figure 37 variable cross cylinder lens rotating drive unit 65 for rotating the cylinder lenses 61A and 61B composing the astigmatism canceling optical element 61) comprising: one or more motors (e.g. 65); a primary optical element (e.g. 61A) having a cylindrical surface profile defining a primary cylinder axis (e.g. line axis 61C), wherein the one or more motors are coupled to, and rotate, the primary optical element about an optical axis (e.g. observation optical axis O1) to a first alignment direction (inter alia abstract “Variable cross cylinder lens rotating drive units are controlled to rotate cylinder lenses”); and a secondary optical element (e.g. 61B) having a cylindrical surface profile defining a secondary cylinder axis (e.g. line axis 61D), wherein the one or more motors (e.g. 65) are coupled to, and rotate, the secondary optical element about the optical axis (e.g. O1) to a second alignment direction (inter alia abstract), wherein: the primary optical element (e.g. 61A) and the secondary optical element (e.g. 61B) are each bilaterally symmetric (inherent feature of a cylinder lens, see figures 8-9); the primary optical element (e.g. 61A) is spaced away from the secondary optical element (e.g. 61B) by an air gap (see figures 8-9), the air gap arranged such that the primary optical element (e.g. 61A) and the secondary optical element (e.g. 61B) are independently rotatable about the optical axis (see figures 8-9); the at least one or more motors (e.g. 65) are coupled to, and rotate, at least one of the primary optical element (e.g. 61A) and the secondary optical element (e.g. 61B) about the optical axis relative to one another to a predetermined inter-element angle to tune an astigmatism correction of an image light (inter alia abstract); and the primary optical element (e.g. 61A) and the secondary optical element (e.g. 61B) are aligned to a fixed point of reference, the fixed point of reference in a plane perpendicular to the optical axis, to control an effective cylindrical axis of the astigmatism correction (axiomatic).
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 August 7, 2026
1 See MPEP 2112.
2 When the reference relied on expressly anticipates or makes obvious all of the elements of the claimed invention, the reference is presumed to be operable. Once such a reference is found, the burden is on applicant to rebut the presumption of operability. In re Sasse, 629 F.2d 675, 207 USPQ 107 (CCPA 1980. Also see In re Antor Media Corp., 689 F.3d 1282, 103 USPQ2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 2012). MPEP 2121.
3 It is noted that claim 23 is further interpreted under 112(b) below.
4 Since applicant did not traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice the statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant did not traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice, see MPEP 2144.03 C.
5 One skilled in the art would know that making a spherical surface aspherical and vice-versa changes the lens’s peripheral region and does not substantially change the lens’s focal length, center thickness and/or gap with adjacent lenses and can be placed anywhere in an optical system. As evidenced by MIL-HDBK-141, page 8-15 section 8.7.4.2 points 1-3. Particularly point 3 states: “One of the main reasons that aspheric surfaces are so valuable, is that they do allow the introduction of aberration at nearly any place in the optical system, without upsetting the distribution of focal lengths of the different elements needed to correct for color and Petzval field curvature.”
6 Since applicant did not traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice the statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant did not traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice, see MPEP 2144.03 C.
7 One skilled in the art would know that making a spherical surface aspherical and vice-versa changes the lens’s peripheral region and does not substantially change the lens’s focal length, center thickness and/or gap with adjacent lenses and can be placed anywhere in an optical system. As evidenced by MIL-HDBK-141, page 8-15 section 8.7.4.2 points 1-3. Particularly point 3 states: “One of the main reasons that aspheric surfaces are so valuable, is that they do allow the introduction of aberration at nearly any place in the optical system, without upsetting the distribution of focal lengths of the different elements needed to correct for color and Petzval field curvature.”
Prosecution Insights