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 .
Examiner’s Comments
As a general discussion the examiner notes that there are significant, insurmountable 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.
In the previous Office Action the examiner interpreted “pancake lens” using the colloquial meaning for a flat, thin lens. Upon further consideration, and in light of the specification, remarks, amendments and interview the examiner is reinterpreting “pancake lens.” See 112 section below.
Drawings
The drawings were received on March 31, 2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
The amendments to the specification were received on March 31, 2026. The amendments were made to be consistent with the new reference numbering used in the amended drawings and do not add any new matter. These amendments to the specification are acceptable.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-13, 16-18, 21-23 and 25 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 1 “the secondary optical element rotate about the optical axis” raises clarity issues. It is unclear if the secondary optical element continually rotates or if the secondary optical element is capable of being rotated (assumed). For purposes of examination the examiner will use “the secondary optical element configured to rotate about the optical axis”.
Claims 2-5, 7, 9-13 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite, since they depend on claim 1 and therefore have the same deficiencies.
Regarding claim 16 “pancake lens” in the preamble has clarity issues. It is unclear if pancake lens means (1) a thin lens assembly1 or (2) a near-to-eye display architecture using polarization elements and partial reflectors that folds the optical path allowing the display to be placed in close proximity to the eye2. It has been held that the determination of whether preamble recitations are structural limitations can be resolved only on review of the entirety of the application "to gain an understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to encompass by the claim" as drafted without importing "'extraneous' limitations from the specification; Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1257, 9 USPQ2d 1962, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1989), see MPEP 2111.02. Previously, there was no waveplates or polarizers or reflective elements in claim 16 and the examiner treated “pancake lens” as meaning a thin lens assembly. However, in the amendments applicant has added “the primary optical element and the secondary optical element each comprising at least one mirrored surface and a waveplate, wherein a surface of the waveplate opposes the at least one mirrored surface.” Given these new structural elements “pancake lens” is interpreted to mean a folded optical display architecture. For purposes of examination the examiner will use “pancake lens display architecture”.
Claims 17-18 and 23 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 22 “wherein the secondary optical element comprises at least one mirrored surface and a waveplate, and a surface of the waveplate opposes the at least one mirrored surface” raises clarity issues. It is unclear if the optical module is now a pancake lens display architecture or if this is a design choice. The specification indicates the optical module is now a pancake lens display architecture. For purposes of examination the examiner will use: “A pancake lens display architecture comprising [[The]] the optical module of claim 21, wherein the secondary optical element comprises at least one mirrored surface and a waveplate, and a surface of the waveplate opposes the at least one mirrored surface.
Regarding claim 25 “wherein the secondary optical element comprises at least one mirrored surface and a waveplate, and a surface of the waveplate opposes the at least one mirrored surface” raises clarity issues. It is unclear if the method is now a method of display with a folded optical path (as seen in figure 2) or if this is a design choice. The specification indicates the method is now a method of display with a folded optical path. For purposes of examination the examiner will use: “A method of display with a folded optical path comprising [[The]] the method of claim 24, wherein the secondary optical element comprises at least one mirrored surface, and a surface of a waveplate opposes the at least one mirrored surface.
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 16-18, 22-23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claim 16 (and its dependents 17-18 and 23), a pancake lens display architecture that combines rotating cylindrical powered lenses (e.g. figure 3) with l/4 waveplate coatings and a reflective polarizing beamsplitting coating is a non-functioning device. As set forth above, one of ordinary skill in the art would know that polarization elements are rotationally sensitive (Wands factors D & E). The claim is combining astigmatic correction by rotating cylindrical powered lenses and coating said cylindrical powered lenses with l/4 waveplate coatings and/or a reflective polarizing beamsplitting coating to create a pancake lens display architecture with insert-free adjustable astigmatic correction (Wands factors A & B). The art currently has near-to-eye displays with an additional adjustable astigmatic correction from cylindrically powered lenses inserted into the display, e.g. see Richards of record (Wands factor C). The examiner contends there is no working example in the specification, as discussed above, and that the directions provided would create a non-functioning device, as discussed above (Wands factors F & G). Considering all the evidence, as a whole, the examiner concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art would need to engage in undue experimentation to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure (Wands factor H), see MPEP 2164.01(a).
Regarding claims 22 and 25, the claims, insofar as they are understood, suffer from substantially the same defects as claim 16 and claims 22 and 25 are rejected as failing the enablement requirement using the same reasoning.
Claims 16-18, 22-23 and 25 are further3 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 claim 16 (and its dependents 17-18 and 23), the claim contains 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. Specifically the examiner contends that device of claim 16, insofar as it is understood, does function and therefore could not be in possession of applicant. Adequate written description means that, in the specification, the applicant must “convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the [claimed] invention.” Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64 [19 USPQ2d 1111] (Fed. Cir. 1991). When no such description can be found in the specification, the only thing the PTO can reasonably be expected to do is to point out its nonexistence. In re Alton, 76 F.3d 1168, 1175 [37 USPQ2d 1578] (Fed. Cir. 1996). Given the non-functioning devices disclosed in the specification the examiner concludes that the application fails to reasonably convey that the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention, see MPEP 2163.04.
Regarding claims 22 and 25, the claims, insofar as they are understood, suffer from substantially the same defects as claim 16 and claims 22 and 25 are rejected as failing the written description requirement using the same reasoning.
Given that claims 16-18, 22-23 and 25 are directed to non-functioning (i.e. inoperable) inventions no prior art rejection is made.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“the primary optical element configured to rotate about the optical axis with a first alignment direction rotatably” in claim 1;
“the secondary optical element configured to rotate about the optical axis with a second alignment direction” in claim 1;
“the primary optical element and the secondary optical element are configured to rotate to a predetermined inter-element angle to tune an astigmatism correction of image light; and the primary optical element and the secondary optical element are aligned to a fixed point of reference, the fixed point of reference located in a plane perpendicular to the optical axis, to control an effective cylindrical axis of the astigmatism correction” in claim 1;
“the primary optical element and the secondary optical element are configured to rotate independently about the optical axis” in claim 2;
“the primary optical element and the secondary optical element are spaced apart along the optical axis by a distance that is configured to be variable” in claim 12;
“the lens assembly and the electronic display are separated along the optical axis by a working distance that is configured to be variable” in claim 13;
“directing image light along an optical axis and through a lens comprising a primary optical element having a primary cylindrical surface profile and a secondary optical element having a secondary cylindrical surface profile; rotating the primary optical element with a first alignment direction and the secondary optical element with a second alignment direction to a predetermined inter-element angle to tune an astigmatism correction of the image light; and aligning the primary optical element and the secondary optical element to a fixed datum, the fixed datum comprising a reference direction in a plane perpendicular to the optical axis, to control an effective cylindrical axis of the astigmatism correction” in claim 19;
“the primary optical element is configured to rotate while the secondary optical element is maintained in a fixed position” in claim 21; and
“rotating the primary optical element while maintaining the secondary optical element in a fixed position” in claim 24.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 16-18, 22-23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the disclosed invention is inoperative, as set forth above, and therefore lacks utility.
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 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, 9-11 and 21 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 (e.g. figure 3 104B) comprising: 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 220A) configured to rotate about the optical axis with a first alignment direction (e.g. via first cylindrical power control signal 212A, see paragraph [0032]); and a secondary optical element having a cylindrical optical property (e.g. second cylindrical liquid crystal lens 202B) defining a secondary cylinder axis (e.g. second cylindrical axis 220B) configured to rotate about the optical axis with a second alignment direction (e.g. via second cylindrical power control signal 212B, see paragraph [0032]) the primary optical element and the secondary optical element are configured to rotate to a predetermined inter-element angle to tune an astigmatism correction of image light (axiomatic); and the primary optical element and the secondary optical element are aligned to a fixed point of reference, the fixed point of reference located in a plane perpendicular to the optical axis, to control an effective cylindrical axis of the astigmatism correction (axiomatic).
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 primary optical element (e.g. 202A) and the secondary optical element (e.g. 202B) has the primary cylinder axis (e.g. 220A) and the secondary cylinder axis (e.g. 220B) are configured to rotate independently 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”).
Richards does not disclose the primary and the secondary optical elements are physically rotated.
Pretorius further teaches the primary and the secondary optical elements (e.g. LE1A & LE2A) are physically rotated (paragraph [0109] “first lens unit LE1A and the second lens unit LE2A are embodied to be rotatable”) for the purpose of correcting the astigmatism of an observer (paragraph [0109]). 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 physically rotated as further taught by Pretorius for the purpose of correcting the astigmatism of an observer.
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 (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 is spaced away from the secondary optical element (e.g. see figure 3).
Regarding claim 11 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 is spaced away from the secondary optical element by an air gap (e.g. see figure 3).
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 wherein the primary optical element (e.g. 202A) has the primary cylinder axis (e.g. 220A) that is configured to rotate while the secondary optical element (e.g. 202B) and the secondary cylinder axis (e.g. 220B) is maintained in a fixed position (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”).
Richards does not disclose the primary and the secondary optical elements are physically rotated.
Pretorius further teaches the primary and the secondary optical elements (e.g. LE1A & LE2A) are physically rotated (paragraph [0109] “first lens unit LE1A and the second lens unit LE2A are embodied to be rotatable”) for the purpose of correcting the astigmatism of an observer (paragraph [0109]). 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 physically rotated as further taught by Pretorius for the purpose of correcting the astigmatism of an observer.
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 a spacing between the primary optical element and the secondary optical element are spaced apart along the optical axis by a distance that is configured to be variable, as required by claim 12; or wherein the lens assembly and the electronic display are separated along the optical axis by a working distance that is configured to be variable, as required by claim 13.
Dewa teaches a similar invention (see figure 1) including directing image light through a system including 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.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dennett “The Stokes Lens for Measuring Astigmatism” Transactions of the American Ophthalmological Society. 4: 106-10, 1885, of record, in view of Love et al. US Patent Application Publication 2015/0208914.
Regarding claim 19 Dennett discloses a method (page 108 third paragraph “method of using the instrument”) comprising: providing an image along an optical axis (page 108 fourth paragraph second sentence notes a user viewing letters on a test card, i.e. light reflected from the card is nominally directed to the eye through the Stokes lens) and through a lens (e.g. Stokes lens) comprising a primary optical element having a primary cylindrical surface profile and a secondary optical element having a secondary cylindrical surface profile (Stokes lens has, by definition, two cylindrical lenses); rotating the primary optical element with a first alignment direction and the secondary optical element with a second alignment direction to a predetermined inter-element angle to tune an astigmatism correction of the image light; and aligning the primary optical element and the secondary optical element to a fixed datum, the fixed datum comprising a reference direction in a plane perpendicular to the optical axis, to control an effective cylindrical axis of the astigmatism correction (sentence spanning pages 107-108 “turns the two component glasses in different directions, and so changes the strength of the lens without altering its axis, but by withdrawing the pinion to the outer row of cogs, the whole lens is revolved in the same direction as the lower part, and so the inclination of the axis is changed without altering the strength of the lens.” & page 108 fourth paragraph second-third sentences “…pull out the pinion to the outer row of cogs, and revolve as slowly or rapidly as convenient until the letters on the test card are seen most distinctly. In the great majority of cases this will give the inclination of the axis at the which the cylinder must be worn, and will require no further correction. Then the number of the cylinder may be determined by pushing in the pinion and revolving as before, until the greatest improvement possible is obtained …” & sentence spanning pages 109-110 “set both cylinders and prisms at O”).
Dennett does not disclose the image provided is from directing image light.
Love teaches a similar method (title) using an optical module (e.g. figure 1 apparatus 2) including an image (e.g. chart 4) viewed through multiple lenses (e.g. lenses 6, 8 & 12) and capable of determining the angle of astigmatism (inter alia paragraph [0054] “astigmatism can also be measured”); and further teaches image (e.g. chart 4) provided is from directing image light (paragraph [0044] “an illuminated display” for the purpose of flickering the images since the human eye is more sensitive to the detection of flickering images than to the blurring of a static image (inter alia paragraph [0009, 0047 & 0053]). 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 method disclosed by Dennett to have the image provided be from directing image light as taught by Love for the purpose of flickering the images since the human eye is more sensitive to the detection of flickering images than to the blurring of a static image.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dennett “The Stokes Lens for Measuring Astigmatism” Transactions of the American Ophthalmological Society. 4: 106-10, 1885, of record, in view of Love et al. US Patent Application Publication 2015/0208914 in further view of Stokes “On a Mode of Measuring the Astigmatism of a Defective Eye” Report of the Nineteenth Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Transactions of the Sections, pages 10-11, 1849, of record.
Regarding claim 24 the combination of Dennett as modified by Love discloses the method of claim 19 including the use of a Stokes lens, as set forth above. Dennett and Love do not disclose or teach rotating the primary optical element while maintaining the secondary optical element in a fixed position.
Stokes teaches a similar method (title) using an optical module with multiple lenses (e.g. page 11 first paragraph “two plano-cylindrical lenses of equal radius, one concave and the other convex, be fixed, one in the lid and the other in the body of a small round wooden box, with a hole in the top and bottom”) and capable of determining the angle of astigmatism (e.g. page 11 first paragraph “calculate the curvature of the cylindrical surface of a lens for a pair of spectacles which will correct the defect of his eye”); and further teaches rotating the primary optical element while maintaining the secondary optical element in a fixed position (e.g. page 11 first paragraph “by merely turning the lid round, an astigmatic lens may be formed of a power varying continuously from zero to twice the astigmatic power of either lens”) for the purpose of determining the astigmatism defect by turned the lid till the power suits the user (page 11 first paragraph). 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 method disclosed by the combination of Dennett as modified by Love to have rotating the primary optical element while maintaining the secondary optical element in a fixed position as taught by Stokes for the purpose of determining the astigmatism defect by turned the lid till the power suits the user.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed March 31, 2026, with respect to claim rejections under 112 have been fully considered and in combination with the amendments are persuasive. The claim rejections under 112 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed March 31, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s statement that the claim interpretations under 112(f) are obviated since “claims 1, 2, 12, 13, 16 and 19 have been amended to clarify the structure for performing the recited function”, the examiner is unpersuaded. Applicant has the primary and secondary optical elements “configure to” rotate around and/or move along an optical axis to correct for visual defects of a user. Lenses (i.e. optical elements) do not inherently move (e.g. rotate) to correct for visual defects (e.g. astigmatism) of a user. In the method cases, it is implicit that the method is comprising the steps of. In the device cases, “element” is a generic term and “primary optical” and “secondary optical” are consider to be nonce terms with respect to the claimed movement function. The phrase “configured to” is used in place of “means for” the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. See MPEP 2181.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 16-18, 22-23 and 25 have been considered but are moot because the current rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding applicant's argument centered on Dennett that the references fail to show certain steps of the claimed method, the examiner is unpersuaded. The steps are interpreted under 112(f), which allows for any functional equivalent to read on the limitations. In this case, "the primary optical element with a first alignment direction and the secondary optical element with a second alignment direction to a predetermined inter-element angle to tune an astigmatism correction of the image light" and align, "the primary optical element and the secondary optical element to a fixed datum, the fixed datum comprising a reference direction in a plane perpendicular to the optical axis, to control an effective cylindrical axis of the astigmatism correction,” and/or a functional equivalent is implicit in the method disclosed by Dennett, as set forth above.
Regarding applicant's argument centered on Dennett “does not operate in the context of a display-based optical system or lens system integrated with an electronic display features, the examiner is unpersuaded. The method of claim 19 does not indicate that it is a display method. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding applicant's argument centered on Dennett failing to disclose directing image light along an optical axis have been considered but are moot because the current rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding applicant’s argument centered on the combination of Richards and Pretorius (and/or Dewa) failing to disclose rotating the cylindrical lenses to correct astigmatism, the examiner is unpersuaded. Richards substantially discloses the claimed invention, including rotating the cylindrical axial power in variable lenses in a display system to correct for astigmatism in a user, as set forth above. Richards fails to disclose the lenses are rotated, as set forth above. In the same field Pretorius corrects this deficiency by rotating two cylindrically powered lenses, as set forth above. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Regarding the limitations interpreted under 112(f), 112(f) allows for any functional equivalent to read on the limitations. In this case, "the primary optical element and the secondary optical element are configured to rotate to a predetermined inter-element angle to tune an astigmatism correction of image light; and the primary optical element and the secondary optical element are aligned to a fixed point of reference, the fixed point of reference located in a plane perpendicular to the optical axis, to control an effective cylindrical axis of the astigmatism correction” and/or a functional equivalent thereof is implicit in the device disclosed by the combination of Richards as modified by Pretorius, as set forth above.
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 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 April 11, 2026
1 Instant application paragraph [0015] first sentence.
2 Instant application paragraph [0015] second though forth sentences.
3 As a point of clarity the written description requirement is separate and distinct from the enablement requirement. Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., Fed. Cir. 2010, see MPEP 2161.
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.
Prosecution Insights