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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments filed 4/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments rely on language solely recited in preamble recitations in claim 1. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “an optical system configured to guide a light beam from a display surface to a pupil surface” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
Regarding the arguments claiming hindsight reasoning for the rejections of previous claims 10-11 over Yun, examiner respectfully states that the rejection of previous claims 10-11 and now amended claim 1 and 11 was not built on improper hindsight reasoning but instead comes directly from Yun’s specification as quoted from paragraph 0027, included below for reference and bolded for emphasis:
“[0027] A reflective polarizer 60 is disposed on and conforms to the first major surface 41 of the third lens 40. The reflective polarizer 60 substantially reflects light having a first polarization state and substantially transmits light having an orthogonal second polarization state in the predetermined wavelength range.”
Page 11 of the Office Action mailed 1/2/2026 recites paragraph 0027 of Yun’s specification multiple times as providing a reason to combine references, and uses the same language utilized in the specification in the U.S.C. §103 analysis. Therefore, the combination of Warner with Yun and Togino with Yun still teaches the amended claims.
Further, in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Counsel's assertion that the modification of Warner in view of Yun would render Warner’s telescope unsatisfactory for its intended purpose as “incident light is generally unpolarized light”, this is merely an argument unaccompanied by evidentiary support, and, thus, is insufficient to rebut Examiner's finding of obviousness. Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.”). MPEP §§ 2145, 716.01(c).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7, 11, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warner et. al US Patent 3,897,133 (hereinafter “Warner”) in view of Yun et. al US 20190384045 (hereinafter “Yun” of record).
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).
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 2, Warner and Yun teach 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 and Yun teach 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 and Yun teach 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 11, Warner and Yun teach the optical system of claim 1, and Yun further teaches wherein the second transmissive reflective surface is a reflective polarizer (Yun para. 0027).
Regarding claim 13, Warner and Yun teach 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).
Claims 1-6, 8-9, 11, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Togino et. al US Patent 5,734,505 (hereinafter “Togino” of record) in view of Yun et. al US 20190384045 (hereinafter “Yun” of record).
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).
Further, 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 2, Togino and Yun teach 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 and Yun teach 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 and Yun teach 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 and Yun teach 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 and Yun teach 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 and Yun teach 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 and Yun teach 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 11, Togino and Yun teach the optical system of claim 1, and Yun further teaches wherein the second transmissive reflective surface is a reflective polarizer (Yun para. 0027).
Regarding claim 14, Togino and Yun teach 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).
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 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
Prosecution Insights