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.
Drawings
The originally filed drawings were received on 12/13/2023. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Abstract is too long.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
Claims 2-5, 7-8 are 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the following inequality" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the following inequality" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the following inequality" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the following inequality" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7, line 3- ‘separates’ should read ‘separate’
Claim 8 is dependent on Claim 7, and hence inherits the deficiencies of Claim 7.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 10, as best understood, are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Komatsu et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2019/0094519 A1).
Komatsu et al. discloses an optical system (See for example Abstract; Figures 1-9) configured to guide a light beam (See for example GL in Figure 6) from a display surface (See for example 11 in Figure 6) to a pupil surface (See for example EY in Figure 6), the optical system comprising, in order from a pupil surface side to a display surface side: a first lens (See for example L1 in Figure 6) having a first transmissive reflective surface (See for example 23 in Figure 6; Paragraphs 0057, 0064) on the display surface side; a second lens (See for example L2 in Figure 6); and a third lens (See for example L3 in Figure 6) having a second transmissive reflective surface (See for example 21 in Figure 6; Paragraphs 0057, 0062) on the pupil surface side, wherein a quarter waveplate (See for example 22 in Figure 6; Paragraphs 0057, 0063) is provided to a surface on the pupil surface side of the second lens, wherein the second lens and the third lens are spaced apart from each other (See for example L2, L3 in Figure 6; in the instant case, L2 and L3 are spaced apart from each other by the presence of intervening layer 21), and wherein the light beam from the display surface transmits through the third lens and the second lens in this order, is reflected by the first transmissive reflective surface toward the display surface, transmits through the second lens, and is reflected toward the pupil surface by the second transmissive reflective surface, transmits through the second lens and the first lens in this order, and enters the pupil surface in this order (See path of GL in Figure 6). Komatsu et al. further discloses one of the first transmissive reflective surface and the second transmissive reflective surface is a polarizer (See for example 23 in Figure 6; Paragraphs 0057, 0064) configured to separates incident light into reflected light and transmitting light according to a polarization state.
Komatsu et al. additionally discloses a display apparatus (See for example Abstract; Figures 1-9) comprising an optical system (See for example 220 in Figure 6); and a display element (See for example 210 in Figure 6) including a display surface, wherein the optical system is configured to guide a light beam (See for example GL in Figure 6) from the display surface (See for example 11 in Figure 6) to a pupil surface (See for example EY in Figure 6), and includes, in order from a pupil surface side to a display surface side: a first lens (See for example L1 in Figure 6) having a first transmissive reflective surface (See for example 23 in Figure 6; Paragraphs 0057, 0064) on the display surface side; a second lens (See for example L2 in Figure 6); and a third lens (See for example L3 in Figure 6) having a second transmissive reflective surface (See for example 21 in Figure 6; Paragraphs 0057, 0062) on the pupil surface side, wherein a quarter waveplate (See for example 22 in Figure 6; Paragraphs 0057, 0063) is provided to a surface on the pupil surface side of the second lens, wherein the second lens and the third lens are spaced apart from each other (See for example L2, L3 in Figure 6; in the instant case, L2 and L3 are spaced apart from each other by the presence of intervening layer 21), and wherein the light beam from the display surface transmits through the third lens and the second lens in this order, is reflected by the first transmissive reflective surface toward the display surface, transmits through the second lens, and is reflected toward the pupil surface by the second transmissive reflective surface, transmits through the second lens and the first lens in this order, and enters the pupil surface in this order (See path of GL in Figure 6).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 4, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komatsu et al. in view of Hong et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication US. 2023/0384594 A1).
Komatsu et al. discloses the invention as set forth above, except for a following inequality is satisfied: 30≤ν2≤97, where ν2 is an Abbe number of the second lens based on d-line. However, Hong et al. teaches a similar head-mounted optical display (See for example Abstract; Figures 1-12) which also features a first lens (See for example E1 in Figure 1), reflective polarizer (See for example RP in Figure 1), quarter wave plate (See for example QWP1 in Figure 1), second lens (See for example E2 in Figure 1), third lens (See for example E3 in Figure 1), a reflective transmissive film (See for example BS in Figure 1), and a display (See for example SC in Figure 1). In particular, each of the three lenses are made of the same plastic material having an Abbe number of approximately 56.0 (See for example Table 1A). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a following inequality be satisfied: 30≤ν2≤97, where ν2 is an Abbe number of the second lens based on d-line, as taught by Hong et al., in the system of Komatsu et al., to take advantage of the ease of obtaining such lenses, while aiding in maintaining image quality.
Claim(s) 8, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komatsu et al.
Komatsu et al. discloses the invention as set forth above, and additionally discloses the polarizer being a reflective wire grid polarizer (See for example 23 in Figure 6; Paragraphs 0057, 0064). Komatsu et al. does not explicitly disclose the polarizer includes a plurality of convex portions made of metal or dielectric, and an array pitch of the plurality of convex portions is 200 nm or less. However, it is well known and conventional in the art that reflective wire grid polarizers include a plurality of convex portions made of metal or dielectric, and an array pitch of the plurality of convex portions is 200 nm or less for the wire grid polarizer to be effective in the visible wavelengths of light. Official Notice is taken. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the polarizer to include a plurality of convex portions made of metal or dielectric, and an array pitch of the plurality of convex portions be 200 nm or less, for the reflective wire grid polarizer to effectively operate over the visible wavelengths of light, and in particular, be effective in polarizing the visible light emitted by the display panel.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 5-6, 9 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.
Claims 2-3, 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARNEL C LAVARIAS whose telephone number is (571)272-2315. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30 AM-7 PM.
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
ARNEL C. LAVARIAS
Primary Examiner
Group Art Unit 2872
1/6/2026
/ARNEL C LAVARIAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872