Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/572,899

OPTICAL DISPLAY SYSTEM AND ELECTRONICS DEVICE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Dec 21, 2023
Examiner
JUNG, JONATHAN Y
Art Unit
2871
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Goertek Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allow Rate
284 granted / 396 resolved
+3.7% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+18.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
26 currently pending
Career history
422
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
58.8%
+18.8% vs TC avg
§102
24.6%
-15.4% vs TC avg
§112
13.9%
-26.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 396 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Response to Amendment Claims 1-11 are currently pending in the present application. Claims 1 and 10-11 are currently amended; and claims 2-9 are original. The amendment dated December 21, 2023 has been entered into the record. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/21/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Drawings The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “1” has been used to designate both the display and a local region of the lens; reference character “3” has been used to designate both light and a helical axis; reference character “4” has been used to designate the reflective lens and cholesteric liquid crystal (CLC) pitch and the in-plane pattern periodicity; reference character “5” has been used to designate the reflective lens and the vertical periodicity and the helical axis; and reference character “6” has been used to designate both the pupil and Bragg surface. Note that the examiner does not necessarily identify all the reference characters designating different parts. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application. 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, 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 1-2, 4-5, 8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathur et al. (US 20190287495, hereinafter “Mathur”) in view of Oh et al. (US 20230393398, hereinafter “Oh”). Regarding claim 1, Mathur discloses an optical display system (Figs. 30A-30C, 45; see Paras. [0130], [0150] and [0512] identifying the embodiment shown in Figs. 30A-30C, 45), comprising: an image-generating display (8010 in Figs. 30A-30B, or 23002 in Fig. 45; Paras. [0407], [0512]); a controllable polarization rotator module (8022, 8060; Paras. [0415] “a polarization rotator 8022” and [0413] “scanning mirror 8060 is configured to reflect the second light beam 8054 … 8060 can be controlled based on the fixation position of the user's eye”), configured to receive light from the image-generating display and output polarized light with a first polarization and/or a second polarization under control (see Figs. 30A-30B and Para. [0410] “the first light beam 8052 can be in a first polarization state, and the second light beam 8054 can be in a second polarization state different from the first polarization state”); a first reflective lens (the in-coupling grating 21010 in Fig. 45; see Para. [0468] teaching in-coupling elements can be reflective diffraction gratings made of cholesteric liquid crystal material. Regarding the lenses, the examiner considers the Specification (clean copy version, Page 6 lines 6-7) indicating lenses having cholesteric liquid crystal material), configured to reflect the polarized light with a first polarization to the pupil (Fig. 45 and Paras. [0512] “a display system 23000 for projecting image streams to an eye of a user” and [0515] “the high-FOV low-resolution image stream in a first polarization”); and a second reflective lens (the in-coupling grating 21020 in Fig. 45; Para. [0468]) configured to reflect the polarized light with a second polarization to the pupil (Fig. 45 and Paras. [0512] “a display system 23000 for projecting image streams to an eye of a user” and [0515] “the low-FOV high-resolution image stream in a second polarization different from the first polarization”). Mathur does not disclose the first reflective lens and the second reflective lens have different optical powers to produce image planes at different depths. However, Oh teaches a first reflective lens and a second reflective lens (2111 a, 2111 b; Paras. [0117], [0275]), wherein the first reflective lens and the second reflective lens have different optical powers (Paras. [0262], [0276]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the reflective lenses as disclosed by Mathur with the teachings of Oh, wherein the first reflective lens and the second reflective lens have different optical powers to produce image planes at different depths, for the purpose of obtaining different depth planes for an user (Oh: Paras. [0059], [0061]). Regarding claim 2, Mathur as modified by Oh discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and Mathur further discloses wherein the first reflective lens and the second reflective lens are on-axis reflective flat lenses (see Para. [0468] teaching the in-coupling elements comprises diffraction gratings made of cholesteric liquid crystal material, thereby indicating the on-axis feature of CLC). Regarding claim 4, Mathur as modified by Oh discloses the limitations of claim 2 above, and Mathur further discloses, further comprising: a beam splitter (8030). Regarding claim 5, Mathur as modified by Oh discloses the limitations of claim 4 above, and Mathur further discloses wherein the on-axis reflective flat lenses are positioned parallel to the display (Figs. 6 and 30C; Para. [0468]). Regarding claim 8, Mathur as modified by Oh discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and Mathur further discloses wherein the flat reflective lenses are positioned parallel to the pupil (Figs. 6 and 29B). Mathur does not disclose the first and/or second reflective lenses are off-axis flat reflective lenses. However, Oh teaches reflective lenses can be configured as an off-axis or on-axis mirror configured to selectively reflect different ranges of wavelengths (Paras. [0117], [0253]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the reflective lenses as disclosed by Mathur with the teachings of Oh, wherein the first and/or second reflective lenses are off-axis flat reflective lenses, for the purpose of selectively reflecting different ranges of wavelengths (Para. [0253]). Regarding claim 10, Mathur as modified by Oh discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and Mathur further discloses wherein the controllable polarization rotator module converts the light with the first polarization into a polarized light with the second polarization under a converting control and transmits the light with the first polarization without the converting control (see Para. [0412] teaching 8030 may be replaced with a switchable reflector, such as a liquid crystal switchable reflector, where such optical switching elements are known to use the direction of the liquid crystal to convert or not convert a polarization of the light based on a converting control). Regarding claim 11, Mathur as modified by Oh discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and Mathur further discloses an electronics device for providing 3D vision (Paras. [0356], [0417]), comprising an optical display system according to claim 1. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathur in view of Oh, and in further view of Sato et al. (US 20200326579, hereinafter “Sato”). Regarding claim 9, Mathur as modified by Oh discloses the limitations of claim 1 above. Mathur does not necessarily disclose at least one of the first reflective lens and the second reflective lens is fabricated with a patterned bottom photo-alignment layer and cholesteric liquid crystal placed on the photo-alignment layer. However, Sato teaches a reflective lens comprising a cholesteric liquid crystal layer (Fig. 1; Para. [0078]), wherein the reflective lens is fabricated with a patterned bottom photo-alignment layer and cholesteric liquid crystal placed on the photo-alignment layer (Paras. [0086], [0109]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the reflective lenses as disclosed by Mathur with the teachings of Sato, wherein at least one of the first reflective lens and the second reflective lens is fabricated with a patterned bottom photo-alignment layer and cholesteric liquid crystal placed on the photo-alignment layer, for the purpose of using known cholesteric liquid crystal layers as reflective lenses to reflect light for desired wavelengths (Sato: Para. [0078]). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 3 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 3, Mathur as modified by Oh discloses the limitations of claim 2 above. However, Mathur and Oh fail to disclose, in light of the specification, “the first reflective lens and the second reflective lens are positioned at 22.5° relative to the pupil”. The examiner further considered Osterhout et al. (US 20210173480, hereinafter “Osterhout”), McEldowney et al. (US 20220066212, hereinafter “McEldowney”) and Huang et al. (US 20210199970, hereinafter “Huang”). For example, Osterhout teaches a waveguide titled relative to the pupil (see the waveguide 508 near the coupling lens 504 in Fig. 5), but fails to disclose the first reflective lens and the second reflective lens as recited in claims 1 and 3. Mathur, Oh, Osterhout, McEldowney and Huang, applied alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the combination and arrangement of elements recited in Applicant's claim 3. Regarding claim 6, Mathur as modified by Oh discloses the limitations of claim 5 above. However, Mathur and Oh fail to disclose, in light of the specification, “the beam splitter is placed in an optical path between the controllable polarization rotator module and the on-axis reflective flat lenses and directs the light from the on-axis reflective flat lenses to the pupil”. The examiner further considered the Figures 34A-34B embodiment of Mathur, in which a beam splitter (12030) is placed in an optical path between a controllable rotator module (12070) and an on-axis reflective flat lenses (12040; [0446]) and directs the light from the on-axis reflective flat lenses to the pupil”, but the embodiment fails to explicitly disclose the controllable rotator module being a controllable polarization rotator module and the on-axis flat lenses being the on-axis reflective flat lenses. The prior art of Mathur, Oh, Osterhout, McEldowney and Huang, applied alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the combination and arrangement of elements recited in Applicant's claim 6. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN Y JUNG whose telephone number is (469)295-9076. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Michael H Caley can be reached on (571)272-2286. 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. /JONATHAN Y JUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 21, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 31, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601905
OBSERVATION OPTICAL SYSTEM AND OPTICAL APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12596212
DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12591081
ABRASION RESISTANCE FOR PATTERNED LENS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12591079
HUMIDITY SENSITIVE NANO-PHOTONICS AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12586320
LIGHTWEIGHT OPTICAL DEVICE FOR AUGMENTED REALITY USING STATE CHANGE OPTICAL ELEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
72%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+18.4%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 396 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month