DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This office action is in response to a reply filed 4/13/2026.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/15/2024 and 7/3/2025 comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the examiner considered the information disclosure statement.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election of specie 1 without traverse in the reply filed on 4/13/2026 is acknowledged, except for claim 4. Upon consideration of the claims and the elected species, the claim 4 is drawn to Species 2 since it recites the feature of “a viewer-side Pancharatnam-Berry lens between the circularly polarized light-selective reflector and the viewer” which is drawn to Species 2 as outlined in the restriction of office action mailed 02/12/2026. Thus, claims 3-4 are withdrawn as being drawn to a non-elected specie and claims 1-2 and 5 are examined herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Amirsolaimani et al. (US20200341268, of record, see IDS dated 07/03/2025) in view of Lee et al. (US20220121061).
Regarding claim 1, Amirsolaimani teaches a display device (optical system 600 in figs.6A-6B; paragraph [0062] “FIG. 6B schematically illustrates a light propagation path 650 in the optical system 600 shown in FIG. 6A.) comprising, in following order toward a viewer (fig.6A, eye 170):
a display panel (fig.6A, display 150);
a semi-transparent mirror (fig.6A, mirror 113, paragraph [0045] “the mirror 113 may be referred to as a 50/50 mirror.”; paragraph [0059] “Descriptions of the similar or same elements shown in FIG. 6A can refer to the above descriptions rendered in connection with FIG. 3”);
a lens (fig.6A, optical element 111 has been referred to as a lens);
a Pancharatnam-Berry lens (fig.6A, PBP lens 130 has been referred to as a Pancharatnam-Berry lens; as described in abstract, “a Pancharatnam Berry Phase (“PBP”)”) configured to cause one-handed circularly polarized light incident thereon that is left-handed circularly polarized light or right-handed circularly polarized light to converge while causing opposite-handed circularly polarized light incident thereon to diverge, the one-handed circularly polarized light being left-handed circularly polarized light or right-handed circularly polarized light (as described in paragraph [0041] “a passive PBP lens may operate in a focusing state in response to an LHCP light, and operate in a defocusing state in response to an RHCP light.”; thus, Amirsolaimani teaches wherein to cause one-handed circularly polarized light incident thereon that is left-handed circularly polarized light or right-handed circularly polarized light to converge while causing opposite-handed circularly polarized light incident thereon to diverge, the one-handed circularly polarized light being left-handed circularly polarized light or right-handed circularly polarized light); and
a circularly polarized light-selective reflector (see Fig.6A, 6B combination of waveplate 114 and reflective polarizer 115; as described in paragraph [0063]; thus; combination of waveplate 114 and reflective polarizer 115 become the circularly polarized light-selective reflector);
Amirsolaimani does not explicitly disclose wherein a circularly polarized light-selective reflector side surface of the lens has having a planar shape.
However, Lee teaches the analogous circularly polarized light-selective reflector (Lee, as described in paragraph [0088] “The polarization selection lens PSL provided in the polarization selection optical system PS may include an optical anisotropic material having different refractive indices with respect to light of two different polarizations, or may include a diffraction-based lens such as a geometric phase lens or a meta lens.”), and further teaches wherein a circularly polarized light-selective reflector (see Lee, fig.3G, as described in paragraph [0101]; thus, combination of quarter-wave plate 85 and linear reflective polarizer 91 become a circularly polarized light-selective reflector) side surface of the lens has having a planar shape (see Lee, fig.6G, the circularly polarized light-selective reflector 85+91 side surface of the lens LS2 has having a planar shape).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Amirsolaimani to have the specific lens shape as taught by Lee for the purpose of having a variable refractive power and is configured to adjust a location of the lens or the mirror on an optical axis or adjust the variable refractive power (Lee, as described in paragraph [0030]; further, since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), MPEP §2144.04(IV)(B). In the instant case, the change in shape does not appear to be significant to the function because for having a variable refractive power and is configured to adjust a location of the lens or the mirror on an optical axis or adjust the variable refractive power).
Regarding claim 2, combination Amirsolaimani-Lee discloses the invention as described in Claim 1, Lee further teaches wherein the lens comprises a first lens part and a second lens part (see Lee, fig.3G, lens LS1 and lens LS2 have been referred to as the first lens part and the second lens part).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Amirsolaimani to have the specific lens as taught by Lee for the purpose of having a variable refractive power and is configured to adjust a location of the lens or the mirror on an optical axis or adjust the variable refractive power (Lee, as described in paragraph [0030]).
Regarding claim 5, combination Amirsolaimani-Lee discloses the invention as described in Claim 1, Amirsolaimani further teaches wherein a head-mounted display (Amirsolaimani, as described in paragraph [0167] “The NED 705 may be a head-mounted display”) comprising: the display device according to claim 1; and a wearable part to be worn on a head of the viewer (see Amirsolaimani, fig.8A, as described in paragraph [0085], the wearable part to be worn on a head of the user).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wang et al. (US20230314809) of figs.1-6G pertinent to claim 1; Hirose et al. (US20230296910) of figs.1-10B pertinent to claim 1; Woodgate et al. (US20230418068) of figs.1-29A pertinent to claim 1; Miller et al. (US20240302697) of figs.1-3 pertinent to claim 1; He et al. (US20240111169) of figs.1-17 pertinent to claim 1; Jamali et al. (US20200348528) of figs.7-17B pertinent to claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUEI-JEN LEE EDENFIELD whose telephone number is (571)272-3005. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. -Thurs 8:00 am - 5:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sun, Pinping can be reached on 571-270-1284. 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 application 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 Services Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199(In USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/KUEI-JEN L EDENFIELD/
Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights