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.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-10 are currently pending in the present application. Claims 1, 3 and 6-10 are currently amended; and claims 2 and 4-5 are original. The amendment dated December 28, 2023 has been entered into the record.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/22/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (CN 209496201 U, the English translation document attached) in view of Bierhuizen et al. (US 20180239146), and in further view of Arai (US 20150205099).
Regarding claim 1, Wu disclose an optical module (Figs. 1-2; Page 4 lines 1-5), comprising:
a display (100; Page 6 line 24) configured for emitting a light for an imaging display in a light-emergent propagation direction (Fig. 1; Page 6 line 24);
a glued lens (310; Figs. 1-2 and Page 3 lines 2-6) provided in the light-emergent propagation direction, comprising a first lens (320) and a second lens (330) sequentially provided along the light-emergent propagation direction of an optical path, the first lens having a first surface facing the display and a second surface facing away from the display (see the surface of 320 facing 100 and the surface of 320 facing 400, respectively), the second lens having a third surface facing the display and a fourth surface facing away from the display (see the surface of 330 facing 100 and the surface of 330 facing 400, respectively), the second surface and the third surface being glued to each other (Figs. 1-2 and Page 3 lines 2-6);
a first quarter-wave plate (3111) provided between the first lens and the second lens;
a beam-splitting element (312 in Figs. 1-2; Page 7 lines 4-5 “a semi-transflective film 312”) (the examiner also considers Para. [0043] of the specification, in which the applicant acknowledges a beam-splitting element includes a transflective film) provided on a side of a first lens facing a display; and
a polarization-reflecting film (3112) provided between the quarter-wave plate and the second lens.
Wu does not disclose the second surface and the third surface being planar; and the fourth surface being convex in a direction facing away from the display.
However, Bierhuizen teaches an optical assembly (Fig. 2) having the second surface and the third surface being planar (see the second surface and the third surface of the optical assembly in Fig. 2); and the fourth surface being convex in a direction facing away from the display (the fourth surface being convex in a direction facing away from 204).
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 optical module as disclosed by Wu with the teachings of Bierhuizen, to have the second surface and the third surface being planar; and the fourth surface being convex in a direction facing away from the display, for the purpose of further reducing the thickness of the optical assembly while using the optical assembly as part of an HMD device (Bierhuizen: Fig. 2 and Paras. [0043], [0059]).
Wu further fails to disclose a pixel size of the display as P, and a beam diameter of an optical module at a full field of view as D, satisfying: D<2P.
However, Arai teaches defining a pixel size of the display as P, and a beam diameter of an optical module at a full field of view as D, satisfying: D<2P (Paras. [0070]-[0071] teaching the beam spot diameter ratio falls in a range of 0.4 to 1.0, i.e., 0.4 < D/P < 1, wherein the beam spot diameter ratio refers to RMS spot diameter ratio relative to one pixel on the screen; Regarding “a full field of view”, the examiner considers Arai states the beam diameter is of the projected image).
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 optical module as disclosed by Wu with the teachings of Arai, to have a pixel size of the display as P, and a beam diameter of an optical module at a full field of view as D, satisfying: D<2P, for the purpose of obtaining properly corrected aberrations by adjusting the beam spot diameter ratio for a display as needed (Arai: Paras. [0070]-[0071]).
Regarding claim 6, Wu as modified by Bierhuizen and Arai discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and Wu further discloses wherein the first surface is convex toward the display (see Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 7, Wu as modified by Bierhuizen and Arai discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and Wu further discloses wherein an anti-reflection film (331; Page 8 lines 1-2) provided on the fourth surface.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Bierhuizen and Arai, and in further view of Qin et al. (US 20190025602).
Regarding claim 10, Wu as modified by Bierhuizen and Arai discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and Wu further discloses a head mount display (Page 1, lines 19-20), comprising: an optical module of claim 1.
Wu does not explicitly disclose a housing; and
an optical module of claim 1, which is provided in the housing and has an overall optical length of TTL satisfying: TTL<25 mm.
However, Qin teaches a head mount display (Figs. 1 and 7), comprising a housing (715) and an optical module (100), which is provided in the housing and has an overall optical length of TTL satisfying: TTL<25 mm (Para. [0034]) “a total track length and a head mounted device that implements augmented reality using the refractive beam splitting lens system can be less than 30 mm”) (the examiner considers Qin discusses general optical systems which include beam splitting lens systems for augmented reality) (A prima facie case of obviousness exists where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art [MPEP 2144.05]).
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 optical module as disclosed by Wu with the teachings of Qin, to have a housing; and an optical module of claim 1, which is provided in the housing and has an overall optical length of TTL satisfying: TTL<25 mm, for the purpose of placing the beam splitting lens system closer to the eye of the user while reducing the overall size of the optical system (Qin: Para. [0034]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 and 8-9 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2, Wu as modified by Bierhuizen and Arai discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
However, Wu, Bierhuizen and Arai fail to disclose, in light of the specification, “a polarizing film provided on a side of the first lens facing away from the display”. The examiner further considered Hua et al. (US 20200393676, hereinafter “Hua”) and Edwards (US 20170242258). However, Wu, Bierhuizen, Arai, Hua, Qin and Edwards, applied alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the combination and arrangement of elements recited in Applicant's claim 2.
Dependent claim 3 is allowable by virtue of their dependence on claim 2.
Regarding claim 4, Wu as modified by Bierhuizen and Arai discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
However, Wu, Bierhuizen and Arai fail to disclose, in light of the specification, “a second quarter-wave plate provided on a side of the polarization-reflecting film facing away from the display”. The examiner further considered the prior art of Hua and Edwards. However, Wu, Bierhuizen, Arai, Hua, Qin and Edwards, applied alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the combination and arrangement of elements recited in Applicant's claim 4.
Dependent claim 5 is allowable by virtue of their dependence on claim 4.
Regarding claim 8, Wu as modified by Bierhuizen and Arai discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
However, Wu, Bierhuizen and Arai fail to disclose, in light of the specification, “the first lens has a center thickness of T1, the second lens has a center thickness of T2, and a distance between the first surface and a light-emergent surface of the display is L, satisfying: 4 mm<T1<8 mm, 3 mm<T2<5 mm, 10 mm<L<15 mm”. The examiner further considered the prior art of Hua and Edwards. However, Wu, Bierhuizen, Arai, Hua, Qin and Edwards, applied alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the combination and arrangement of elements recited in Applicant's claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, Wu as modified by Bierhuizen and Arai discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
However, Wu, Bierhuizen and Arai fail to disclose, in light of the specification, “the first surface has a radius value of R1, the first surface has a conic constant of C1, the fourth surface has a radius value of R4, and the fourth surface has a conic constant of C4, satisfying: 60 mm<R1<100 mm, C1<10; 120 mm<R4<200 mm, C4<10”. The examiner further considered the prior art of Hua and Edwards. However, Wu, Bierhuizen, Arai, Hua, Qin and Edwards, applied alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the combination and arrangement of elements recited in Applicant's claim 9.
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