DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) filed on 12/07/2023, 1/12/2024, 8/13/2024 have been acknowledged and considered by the examiner. Initialed copies of supplied IDS(s) forms are included in this correspondence.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 12, claim states the limitation “a distance between the first lens and the third lens changes during diopter adjustment” in both lines of the claim. This limitation is unclear because neither claim 12 nor claim 1 disclose a discernable boundary on what performs the function of changing the distance between lenses, such as a mechanism – therefore the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. Is there some structure performing this function, or is there someone outside operating the device in some manner? The recited function does not follow from the structure recited in claims 1 or 12, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim (MPEP §2173.05(g)). For purposes of compact prosecution, so long as the lenses may be made adjustable, this limitation will be considered met.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Warner et. al US Patent 3,897,133 (hereinafter “Warner”).
Regarding claim 1, Warner teaches an optical system configured to guide a light beam from a display surface to a pupil surface, the optical system comprising, in order from a pupil surface side to a display surface side:
a first lens (Warner fig. 4 - 158) having a first transmissive reflective surface on the pupil surface side (Warner fig. 4 - 158 has 152 on the pupil surface side where 152 includes 42 and 154);
a second lens (Warner fig. 4 - 160); and
a third lens (Warner fig. 4 - 162) having a second transmissive reflective surface on the display surface side (Warner fig. 4 – 166 is on the display surface side of 162),
wherein the second lens (160) is cemented with the first lens (Warner fig. 4 – 160 cemented to 158) or the third lens (Warner fig. 4 – 160 cemented to 162), and
wherein the light beam from the display surface transmits through the second transmissive reflective surface, transmits through the third lens (162), the second lens (160), and the first lens (158) in this order (Warner fig. 2 – light from the object enters through 166 when using configuration in fig. 4, see also col. 5 lines 11-29), is reflected by the first transmissive reflective surface (Warner 152, 154, 42, col. 5 lines 11-29), transmits through the first lens (158), the second lens (160), and the third lens (162) in this order (Warner col. 5 lines 11-29), is reflected by the second transmissive reflective surface (166), transmits through the third lens (162), the second lens (160), and the first lens (158) in this order, transmits through the first transmissive reflective surface (152, 154, 42), and enters the pupil surface (Warner fig. 2 shows the light path that is described in col. 5 lines 11-29 and would travel as claimed when the configuration in fig. 4 is utilized).
Regarding claim 2, Warner teaches the optical system according to claim 1, and Warner further teaches wherein the second lens (160) is cemented with the third lens (Warner fig. 4 – 160 cemented to 162).
Regarding claim 4, Warner teaches the optical system according to claim 1, and Warner further teaches wherein the second lens (160) is cemented with the first lens (Warner fig. 4 – 160 cemented to 158).
Regarding claim 7, Warner teaches the optical system according to claim 1, and Warner further teaches wherein at least one surface of the first lens, the second lens, or the third lens is an aspheric surface having an inflection point (see annotated Warner fig. 4 below for an inflection point on the first lens).
PNG
media_image1.png
274
492
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Warner teaches the optical system according to claim 1, and Warner further teaches wherein a distance between the third lens and the display surface changes during diopter adjustment (Warner col. 6 lines 26-49 – the location of the image plane may be adjusted with respect to magnification or focal length).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-6, 8-9, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Togino et. al US Patent 5,734,505 (hereinafter “Togino”).
Regarding claim 1, Togino teaches an optical system configured to guide a light beam from a display surface (Togino fig. 11b – 4) to a pupil surface (Togino fig. 11b – 1), the optical system comprising, in order from a pupil surface side to a display surface side:
a first lens (Togino fig. 11b – L1) having a first transmissive reflective surface (Togino fig. 11b – light rays reflect off the pupil side of L1, the same arrangement is shown in Togino fig. 22 of each depicted subsystem)
a second lens (Togino fig. 11b – L2); and
a third lens (Togino fig. 11b – L3) having a second transmissive reflective surface on the display surface side (Togino fig. 11b – 3 is on the display surface of L3),
wherein the second lens (L2) is cemented with the first lens (Togino fig. 11b – L2 is cemented to L1) or the third lens (Togino fig. 11b – L2 is cemented to L3), and
wherein the light beam from the display surface transmits through the second transmissive reflective surface, transmits through the third lens, the second lens, and the first lens in this order, is reflected by the first transmissive reflective surface, transmits through the first lens, the second lens, and the third lens in this order, is reflected by the second transmissive reflective surface, transmits through the third lens, the second lens, and the first lens in this order, transmits through the first transmissive reflective surface, and enters the pupil surface (Togino fig. 11b and 22 – shows light rays traveling as described).
Though Togino depicts a first lens (Togino fig. 11b – L1) having a first transmissive reflective surface on the pupil surface side based on the light path of Figure 11b and Figure 22, col. 11 lines 35-50 describe the semitransparent mirror 2 to be between L1 and L2 which would be the display surface of L1. This discrepancy is further shown in the annotated Togino fig. 11b below.
PNG
media_image2.png
405
1137
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to rearrange the semitransparent mirror 2 of Figure 11b to be on the pupil side of L1 based on the depicted path of the light rays, since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of elements without modification of the operation of the device only involves routine skill in the art. In re Japikse 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 2, Togino teaches the optical system according to claim 1, and Togino further teaches wherein the second lens (L2) is cemented with the third lens (Togino fig. 11b).
Regarding claim 3, Togino teaches the optical system according to claim 2, and Togino further teaches wherein the following inequality is satisfied:
|vd3−vd2|>5.0 (Togino col. 20 example 11, |25.4-55.3| = 29.9 > 5.0)
where vd2 is an Abbe number of the second lens based on d-line, and vd3 is an Abbe number of the third lens based on the d-line.
Regarding claim 4, Togino teaches the optical system according to claim 1, and Togino further teaches wherein the second lens (L1) is cemented with the first lens (Togino fig. 11b – L2 is cemented to L1).
Regarding claim 5, Togino teaches the optical system according to claim 4, and Togino further teaches wherein the following inequality is satisfied:
|vd1−vd2|>5.0 (Togino col. 20 example 11, |25.4-55.3| = 29.9 > 5.0)
where vd1 is an Abbe number of the first lens based on d-line, and vd2 is an Abbe number of the second lens with respect to the d-line.
Regarding claim 6, Togino teaches the optical system according to claim 1.
Togino further teaches L1/F ≈ 0.20 where L1 ≈ 26.79 and F ≈ 136.62, which lies just outside the claimed range of 0.60<L1/F<1.00 where L1 is a distance from a surface on the pupil surface side of the first lens to the display surface, and F is a focal length of the optical system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the claimed range of 0.60<L1/F<1.00, since a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art, but are merely close that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985); MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 8, Togino teaches the optical system according to claim 1, and Togino further teaches wherein at least one surface of the first lens (L1), the second lens (L2), or the third lens (L3) is a flat surface (Togino fig. 11b – the pupil side surface of L1 is flat).
Regarding claim 9, Togino teaches the optical system according to claim 1, and Togino further teaches wherein the following inequality is satisfied:
0.25<L1/D<0.50 (Togino fig. 11b, where L1 ≈ 3.9 and D ≈ 6.2 as calculated, so L1/D ≈ 0.6)
where L1 is a distance from a surface on the pupil surface side of the first lens to the display surface, and D is a largest effective diameter among the first lens, the second lens, and the third lens.
Regarding claim 12, Togino teaches the optical system according to claim 1.
Togino does not teach wherein a distance between the first lens and the third lens changes during diopter adjustment, however Togino does not specify any reason to have the lenses of Figure 11(b) cemented together.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make the first lens adjustable, since it has been held that adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Regarding claim 14, Togino teaches a display apparatus comprising:
the optical system according to claim 1 (see the Togino rejection of claim 1 above),
a display element including the display surface (Togino col. 11 lines 35-50).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Togino as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yun et. al US 20190384045 (hereinafter “Yun”).
Regarding claim 10, Togino teaches the optical system according to claim 1.
Togino does not specify wherein the first transmissive reflective surface is a reflective polarizer.
In the same field of endeavor, Yun teaches wherein the first transmissive reflective surface is a reflective polarizer (Yun para. 0027) for the purpose of reflecting light having a first polarization state and substantially transmitting light having an orthogonal second polarization state (Yun para. 0027). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a reflective polarizer as taught by Yun in the optical system of Togino in order to reflect light having a first polarization state and substantially transmit light having an orthogonal second polarization state (Yun para. 0027).
Regarding claim 11, Togino teaches the optical system of claim 1.
Togino does not specify wherein the second transmissive reflective surface is a reflective polarizer.
In the same field of endeavor, Yun teaches wherein the second transmissive reflective surface is a reflective polarizer (Yun para. 0027) for the purpose of reflecting light having a first polarization state and substantially transmitting light having an orthogonal second polarization state (Yun para. 0027). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a reflective polarizer as taught by Yun in the optical system of Togino in order to reflect light having a first polarization state and substantially transmit light having an orthogonal second polarization state (Yun para. 0027).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warner as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yun et. al US 20190384045 (hereinafter “Yun”; as cited above).
Regarding claim 10, Warner teaches the optical system according to claim 1.
Warner does not specify wherein the first transmissive reflective surface is a reflective polarizer.
In the same field of endeavor, Yun teaches wherein the first transmissive reflective surface is a reflective polarizer (Yun para. 0027) for the purpose of reflecting light having a first polarization state and substantially transmitting light having an orthogonal second polarization state (Yun para. 0027). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a reflective polarizer as taught by Yun in the optical system of Warner in order to reflect light having a first polarization state and substantially transmit light having an orthogonal second polarization state (Yun para. 0027).
Regarding claim 11, Warner teaches the optical system of claim 1.
Warner does not specify wherein the second transmissive reflective surface is a reflective polarizer.
In the same field of endeavor, Yun teaches wherein the second transmissive reflective surface is a reflective polarizer (Yun para. 0027) for the purpose of reflecting light having a first polarization state and substantially transmitting light having an orthogonal second polarization state (Yun para. 0027). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a reflective polarizer as taught by Yun in the optical system of Warner in order to reflect light having a first polarization state and substantially transmit light having an orthogonal second polarization state (Yun para. 0027).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warner as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 12, Warner teaches the optical system according to claim 1.
Warner does not teach wherein a distance between the first lens and the third lens changes during diopter adjustment.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make the first lens adjustable, since it has been held that adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yun et. al US Patent 11,630,290, patent of Yun et. al US 20190384045;
Kirschner et. al US Patent 4,082,432, teaches a similar light path to the instant application;
Gollier et. al US Patent 11,054,622, teaches a similar light path to the instant application;
Perez et. al US 20120147038, teaches a HUD display with lenses that move;
Perez et. al US Patent 8,988,463, patent of Perez et. al US 20120147038.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH M HALL whose telephone number is (703)756-5795. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5:30 pm PST.
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.
/ELIZABETH M HALL/ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/RICKY L MACK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872