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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: “according to any one of claims 1 to 9” should read “according to claims 1”. Appropriate correction is requested.
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 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DING (CN 115268071 B; in related embodiments; Espacenet translation attached) in view of Saito (US 9651768).
Regarding claim 1, DING teaches an optical module, applied to a virtual reality VR device (i.e., an optical module and a head-mounted display device, page 1, 1st paragraph) and comprising, from an image side to an object side: a first lens (20), a second lens (10) and a third lens (70) (i.e., In the optical module, the number of lenses provided can be one, two, or three or more, and can be flexibly adjusted according to specific needs, page 5, paragraph 7); wherein a lamination film is attached on an image-side surface of the first lens, the lamination film comprising, from the image side to the object side, a reflective polarizing film (50/60) and a quarter waveplate film (40) (as shown at least in FIGS. 1, 4 and 5, also see page 3, last paragraph and page 4, 4th paragraph); and the optical module further satisfying following conditions:
1.00≤f23/f≤1.50 ((EFL1+EFL2)/EFL = (14.5+11.5)/20.6 = 1.26, page 5);
MAX SD≤27.00 mm (i.e., 0.2 < TL2/D < 0.9, 15.66/D1 =~ 0.8 = calibre D2 = 15.66*0.8 = 12.5, see table 3);
Eyebox ≥ 12.00*12.00 mm (optical modules with wide fields of view and large eyeboxes e.g., ≥ 8 mm, page 5, lines 1-2 and 29-42);
where f denotes a focal length of the optical module, f23 denotes a combined focal length of the second lens and the third lens, MAX SD denotes a maximum semi-caliber of a lens of the optical module, and Eyebox denotes an eye box size of the optical module.
DING teaches all limitations except for explicit teaching of a third lens, a combined focal length of the second lens and the third lens, a lamination film is attached on an image-side surface of the first lens comprising a reflective polarizing film and a quarter waveplate film, and the conditions 1.00≤f23/f≤1.50.
However, in a related field of endeavor Saito teaches a second lens L2 and a third lens L3, column 3, lines 44-50, FIG. 1, Example 1, Table 10, where f/f2 = 2.48 = 23/f2 = 2.48, f2 = 23/2.48 = 9.3; and 23/f3 = 1.62, f3 = 23/1.6 = 14.4 thus f23 = (9.3+14.4) = 23.77 and f23/f = 23.77/23.1 = 1.03).
Saito further teaches the eyepiece lens be provided with a protective multi-layer coating, column 5, lines 44-48.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of DING such that an eyepiece lens with a second and a third lens, where f23/f = 1.03, and a protective multi-layer coating on the eyepiece lens as taught by Saito, for the purpose of reducing ghost light, etc., during use, and to achieve successful correction of aberrations while achieving size reduction.
Regarding claim 2, DING fails teach an image-side surface of the first lens is a plane surface, and an image-side surface and an object-side surface of the second lens are both aspherical surfaces.
However, in a related field of endeavor Saito teaches the first spherical lens L1 having a positive refractive power is formed by a plano-convex lens, as shown in FIG. 1, column 5, lines 63-65. The eyepiece lens consists of, in order from an observed object M side along the optical axis Z, a first spherical lens L1 having a positive refractive power, a second spherical lens L2 having a negative refractive power, and a third lens L3 having a positive refractive power with at least the observed object-side surface thereof having an aspheric shape, column 3, lines 44-50.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of DING such that a first lens having a plane surface in image side, and a second spherical lens as taught by Saito, for the purpose of reducing ghost light, etc., during use.
Regarding claim 3, DING teaches satisfying following condition: 90.00º ≤ FOV ≤ 110.00º; where FOV denotes a field of view of the optical module (i.e., the field of view angle is ≥90°, page 1).
Regarding claim 4, DING according to claim 1 further teaches satisfying following conditions: TTL≤15.00 mm; and TTL/f ≤ 0.70 (i.e., TL2 = 15.66 and TL2/f = 15.66/23 = 0.68, as set forth in claim 1 above);
wherein TTL denotes an on-axis distance from the image-side surface of the first lens to an object-side surface of the third lens.
DING discloses the claimed invention except for TTL≤15.00 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have TL2 = 15.66 since the claimed ranges and the prior art ranges are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Nabber, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 7, DING according to claim 1 further teaches an optical distortion less than or equal to 35% (i.e., as shown in FIG. 8, the maximum value of the field curvature is less than 0.1 mm. The distortion reflects the deformation of the imaging, and the imaging deformation is small (e.g., less than or equal to 35%), page 9).
Regarding claim 8, DING according to claim 1 further teaches a chromatic aberration less than or equal to 100 μm (i.e., Improving optical module resolution at the edge of the eyebox (e.g., eyebox ≥ 8mm) and with a wide field of view requires a high level of aberration correction (e.g., less than or equal to 100 μm), page 4).
Regarding claim 9, DING according to claim 1 further teaches a diopter with an adjustment range of 0-7D (i.e., adjusting the refractive index of the positive and negative lenses (e.g., an adjustment range of 0-7D); and third, adding a thick meniscus lens. In order to meet the design requirements of lightweight VR devices, page 4, paragraph 4).
DING discloses the claimed invention except for a diopter range of 0-7D. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust a diopter range, since 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).
Regarding claim 10, DING teaches VR device (VR optical systems, page 1), comprising an optical module according to any one of claims 1 to 9 (i.e., an optical module and a head-mounted display device, page 1, 1st paragraph, and as set forth in claim 1 above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 5, the prior art does not teach, or renders obvious, regarding an object-side surface of the third lens is coated with a transflective film, satisfying following conditions:
40.00% ≤ T ≤ 60.00%; and
40.00% ≤ F ≤ 60.00%
where T denotes a transmissive rate of the transflective film; and F denotes a reflective rate of the transflective film.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art does not teach, or renders obvious, regarding the reflective polarizing film has a transmissive rate greater than or equal to 95%.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Geng et al. (US 20170255015) teaches “Pupil swim is the effect when changes in the location of a user's eye within an eyebox results in distortions in the content being presented to the user. Correcting for field curvature mitigates pupil swim. A field curvature corrected display is part of a head-mounted display (HMD). The HIVID may be part of, e.g., a virtual reality (“VR”) and/or augmented reality (“AR”) system environment. The field curvature corrected (FC) display mitigates field curvature in an image that is output to a user's eyes to reduce pupil swim. The FC display generally includes elements that generate the image light and elements that mitigate field curvature from the image light.”, paragraph 0028.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUSTAK CHOUDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-5247. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM-5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ricky Mack can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MUSTAK CHOUDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
January 31, 2026