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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A & 2 in the reply filed on November 19, 2025 is acknowledged. No claims are withdrawn and claims 1-20 are examined below.
Examiner’s Comments
Regarding the terms “pancake lens” and “pancake optics” – Page 3 paragraph [0015] recites:
Pancake lenses are generally flat, relatively thin assemblies that are principally valued for providing quality optics in a compact package. Using polarization and reflection elements, light may be directed back and forth multiple times along an optical path within a pancake lens. This approach, known as pancake or folded optics, allows the lens and the display to be located in close proximity, resulting in a more compact system. In some embodiments, a pancake optical module may include or constitute a catadioptric optical system.
In light of the specification the examiner interprets a “pancake lens” only as a thin lens assembly. On the other hand, the examiner interprets a “pancake optics” (a.k.a. folded optic) as a display arrangement that uses polarization and reflection elements to direct light back and forth multiple times along an optical path, which may include said pancake lens. (It is noted that in the claims applicant has only claimed a “pancake lens.”) These interpretations are reasonable and well within the grasp of the ordinarily skilled and consistent the broadest reasonable interpretation as is required be the MPEP §2111.
Specification
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The disclosure is objected to. The specification discloses a folded/pancake display – e.g. figure 2 display 106, first l/4 waveplate 130, partial mirror 132, second l/4 140 and a reflective polarizer 142 – incorporated as coatings on a lens pair – e.g. figure 1A lenses 104 and 106 – and a lens pair each including cylindrical power – e.g. figure 3 lenses 104 and 106 – that are rotated to correct for stigmatism. The examiner notes that if the lens pair each with cylindrical axis is coated with l/4 waveplates and a reflective polarizer as part of a folded display and said lens pair is rotated to correct a stigmatism the folded display portion will cease to work. This is because l/4 waveplates and reflective polarizers are rotationally sensitive. There is no 112(a) enablement rejection below because applicant does not claim this combination. Applicant only claims a lens pair each including cylindrical power that are rotated to correct for stigmatism (associated with a display). However, the specification’s use of the same the reference numbers – e.g. 104 & 106 in figures 1A & 3 – imply an optical elements in the folded display of figure 1A (including rotationally sensitive polarization coatings on 104 & 106) may include cylindrical power of figure 3 that are rotated to correct for stigmatism. Further, page 15 paragraph [0060] Example 15 explicitly sets forth this combination. The examiner suggests removing references to the combination of lenses with a cylindrical axis rotated to correct stigmatism coated with l/4 waveplates and reflective polarizers as part of a folded display and renumbering the optical elements in the figures to clarify which ones are coated and which ones have cylindrical axis rotated to correct stigmatism, see 37 CFR 1.84(p). No new matter may be added. Alternatively, applicant could file a continuation in-part. Appropriate correction is required.
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 uses 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:
“a primary optical element … rotatably alignable with a first direction” in claim 1;
“a secondary optical element … rotatably alignable with a second direction” in claim 1;
“the primary optical element and the secondary optical element are independently rotatable” in claim 2
“wherein the primary cylinder axis is configured to be aligned by a user with the first direction and the secondary cylinder axis is configured to be aligned by the user with the second direction” in claim 6;
“a spacing between the primary optical element and the secondary optical element along the optical axis is adjustable” in claim 12;
“a working distance between the lens assembly and the electronic display is adjustable” in claim 13;
“a primary optical element … configured to be rotatable about an optical axis” in claim 16;
“a secondary optical element … configured to be rotatable about the optical axis” in claim 16;
“directing image light along an optical axis and through a pancake lens comprising a primary optical element having a primary cylindrical surface profile and a secondary optical element having a secondary cylindrical surface profile; rotatably aligning the primary optical element with a first direction; and rotatably aligning the secondary optical element with a second direction to provide astigmatism correction to the image light” in claim 19; and
“aligning both the primary optical element and the secondary optical element with respect to a fixed datum” in claim 20.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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 8, 16-18 and 20 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 8 “wherein the lens assembly comprises a pancake lens” raises clarity issues. It is unclear if applicant is adding a tertiary optical element to the lens assembly (e.g. withdrawn Species 3, as seen in figure 4) or if applicant is describing the lens assembly comprising a primary and secondary optical elements. The instant application paragraph [0015] states: “Pancake lenses are generally flat, relatively thin assemblies that are principally valued for providing quality optics in a compact package.” In light of this the examiner interprets the claim as indicating the lens assembly is a generally flat, relatively thin assembly. However, this remains vague and indefinite, since there are no values given to determine if the lens assembly qualifies as a pancake lens or if it is not flat enough or thin enough, making the metes and bounds unclear. Insofar as the examiner can decern an assembly that is “generally flat” and “relatively thin” amounts to a subjective limitation. Particularly this appears to be dependent upon the opinion of a person and the specification fails to provide guidance as to what would be flat enough and thin enough to qualify as a pancake lens. It has been held that a claim that requires the exercise of subjective judgment without restriction may render the claim indefinite; In re Musgrave, 431 F.2d 882, 893 (CCPA 1970), see MPEP 2173.05(b)IV. For purposes of examination the examiner will use “wherein the lens assembly may be referred to as a pancake lens” which fails to further limit the invention, and remains vague and/or indefinite. The examiner respectfully suggests cancelling this claim.
Regarding claim 16 “a primary optical element configured to receive image light from a display” and “a secondary optical element configured to receive the image light from the primary optical element” raises clarity issues. It is unclear if a display and/or image light are required elements or if an intended use is being claimed or if the arrangement along the optical axis is being emphasized. The examiner is interpreting this to claim just the two lenses (i.e. the primary and secondary optical elements) and does not wish to include a display (as in claim 1). Since the arrangement of the device elements is clear from the rest of the claim and since claim 1 covers the same scope as claim 16 with the addition a display it is assumed that only the lens portion is claimed in claim 16. To overcome this clarity issue the examiner suggests, and for purposes of examination will use: “a primary optical element
Claims 17-18 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 20 “aligning both the primary optical element and the secondary optical element with respect to a fixed datum” raises clarity issues. The limitation has been interpreted under 112(f). Upon referencing the specification the examiner found the same wording repeated and no further clarification as to what single piece of immutable data is used and or how it is used with respect to alignment. Indeed, the examiner cannot determine if this is a motivation (e.g. aligning the elements to clearly see the image) or is part of an algorithm and the “fixed datum” is the initial position before aligning or is the corrective power/prescription of the system or is the spacing of the lenses or a ratio of rotational angles or something else. For purposes of examination the examiner will interpret the limitation as inherent since a method that moves lenses to provide astigmatism correction would necessarily have some “fixed datum” involved in the aligning.
Claim Warning
Applicant is advised that should claim 10 be found allowable, claim 11 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Insofar as it is understood, claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 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.
Regarding claim 16 Stokes anticipates a pancake lens (page 10 last paragraph first & second sentence “a lens ground with two cylindrical surfaces” & “two thin astigmatic lenses”) comprising: a primary optical element (e.g. one of the two thin lenses) configured to be rotatable about an optical axis and comprising a primary cylindrical surface profile (e.g. page 11 first paragraph describes a “small round wooden body” that the two lenses are mounted such the two lenses rotate relative to each other); and a secondary optical element (e.g. other of the two thin lenses) configured to be rotatable about the optical axis and comprising a secondary cylindrical surface profile (e.g. page 11 first paragraph describes a “small round wooden body” that the two lenses are mounted such the two lenses rotate relative to each other).
Insofar as they are understood, claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dennett “The Stokes Lens for Measuring Astigmatism” Transactions of the American Ophthalmological Society. 4: 106-10, 1885.
Regarding claim 19 Dennett discloses a method (page 108 third paragraph “method of using the instrument”) comprising: directing image light 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 pancake 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); rotatably aligning the primary optical element with a first direction; and rotatably aligning the secondary optical element with a second direction to provide astigmatism correction to the image light (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 …”).
Regarding claim 20 Dennett discloses the method of claim 19, as set forth above. Dennett further discloses wherein rotatably aligning the primary and secondary optical elements comprises aligning the primary optical element with respect to the secondary optical element (page 108 fourth paragraph), and aligning both the primary optical element and the secondary optical element with respect to a fixed datum (inherent as set forth in the 112 section above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Insofar as they are understood, claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richards et al. US Patent Application Publication 2019/0265514 in view of Pretorius US Patent Application Publication 2023/0324660, with as certain facts evidenced by MIL-HDBK-141 “Military Standardization Handbook Optical Design” October 1962, page 8-15 and Wikipedia webpage “Lens” as of 2023.
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) rotatably alignable with a first 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) rotatably alignable with a second direction (e.g. via second cylindrical power control signal 212B, see paragraph [0032]).
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) be independently rotatable 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 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 8-151. 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 6 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 cylinder axis is configured to be aligned by a user with the first direction and the secondary cylinder axis is configured to be aligned by the user with the second direction (e.g. paragraph [0039] “the viewer may use input interface 508 to manipulate one or more of the prescription components while viewing test patterns or other images on display 502 to render the patterns or images focused from the viewer's perspective while controller 102 controls lens assembly 104 and/or actuator 506. Once the patterns or images appear to be focused, the viewer may then indicate that fact to controller 102 via input interface 508”).
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 second directions are substantially orthogonal to the optical axis (see figure 3).
Regarding claim 8 the combination of Richards as modified by Pretorius discloses the optical module of claim 1, as set forth above. Richards further discloses wherein the lens assembly (e.g. 104B) comprises a pancake lens (inherent as set forth in the 112 section above, further 104B appears to be “generally flat, relatively thin” matching applicant’s description of pancake lenses).
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 notice 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).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richards et al. US Patent Application Publication 2019/0265514 in view of Pretorius US Patent Application Publication 2023/0324660 and in further view of Dewa et al. US Patent Application Publication 2023/0137707.
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 along the optical axis is adjustable, as required by claim 12; or wherein a working distance between the lens assembly and the electronic display is adjustable, 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.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richards et al. US Patent Application Publication 2019/0265514 in view of Pretorius US Patent Application Publication 2023/0324660 and in further view of Ouderkirk et al. US Patent Application Publication 2022/0350147.
Regarding claims 14-15 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 mirrored surface, as required by claim 14; or wherein the primary optical element comprises a beamsplitter element and the secondary optical element comprises a reflective polarizer, as required by claim 15.
Ouderkirk teaches a similar optical module (title e.g. figures 18-20) including a display (e.g. figure 14 display 1405), primary and secondary optical elements (e.g. lens 1430 & polarized reflector 1440) where lenses may have cylindrical, spherical, or aspherical surfaces (inter alia paragraph [0121]) which may be rotated (inter alia paragraph [0208]) to correct for astigmatism (inter alia paragraph [0055]); and further teaches the primary optical element (e.g. 1430) comprises a mirrored surface/beamsplitter element (e.g. beamsplitter 1420 see figure 14 ray 1450 being reflected as ray 1455) and the secondary optical element (e.g. 1440) comprises a mirrored surface/reflective polarizer (e.g. polarized reflector 1440 see figure 14 ray 1445 being reflected as ray 1450) for the purpose of having an optical configuration configured to provide an image of the display (inter alia abstract). 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 optical elements each comprise a mirrored surface, or wherein the primary optical element comprises a beamsplitter element and the secondary optical element comprises a reflective polarizer as taught by Ouderkirk for the purpose of having an optical configuration configured to provide an image of the display.
Insofar as it is understood claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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.
Regarding claim 17 Stokes anticipates the pancake lens of claim 16, as set forth above. Stokes is silent regarding the amount of optical correction/power. Specifically, Stokes does 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 Stokes 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 pancake lens as anticipated by Stokes to have each lens have 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.
Insofar as it is understood claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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 in view of Sims US Patent 5,104,214 with as certain facts evidenced by MIL-HDBK-141 “Military Standardization Handbook Optical Design” October 1962, page 8-15.
Regarding claim 18 Stokes anticipates the pancake lens of claim 16, as set forth above. Stokes does not disclose wherein: the primary optical element comprises a primary aspherical surface profile and the primary cylindrical surface profile is overlaid on the primary aspherical surface profile; and the secondary optical element comprises a secondary aspherical surface profile and the secondary cylindrical surface profile is overlaid on the secondary aspherical surface profile.
Sims teaches a similar pancake lens (title e.g. figures 3-5 lens system 130) including rotatable primary and secondary optical elements to correct for astigmatism (abstract “rotatable cells … Each set of cells is designed to house a pair of either cylinder, polarized, prism, crossed cylinder or sphero-cylinder lenses as appropriate for correcting optical errors such as astigmatism”); and further teaches the optical elements comprise a primary spherical surface profiles and cylindrical surface profiles overlaid on the spherical surface profiles (abstract “sphero-cylinder lenses”) for the purpose of obtaining the optimal visual acuity (column 5 lines 41-48). 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 pancake lens as anticipated by Stokes to have to have merged the cylindrical surface profiles with spherical surface profile as taught by Sims for the purpose of obtaining the optimal visual acuity.
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 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 8-152. 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kunick et al. US Patent 5,526,181; in regards to a similar invention, see abstract and figure 2.
Nemes US Patent 7,167,321; in regards to a similar invention, see abstract and figure 3.
Baldwin US Patent Application Publication 2008/0297912; in regards to a similar invention, see abstract and figures 4B-4C.
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 December 8, 2025
1 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.”
2 Ibid.