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 .
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/26/2024, 11/13/2024 and 6/10/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
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 1-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, cited term of “the phase compensation structure comprises at least one first light-transmitting layer and at least one second light-transmitting layer which are arranged in a stacked manner, wherein the at least one first light-transmitting layer and the at least one second light-transmitting layer are alternately arranged, and a refractive index of the first light-transmitting layer is greater than a refractive index of the second light-transmitting layer, and a number of the at least one first light-transmitting layer is equal to a number of the at least one second light-transmitting layer; and the first light-transmitting layer is attached with the phase retardation film” (line 11-18) is vague and renders the claims indefinite. As claim cites “at least one first light-transmitting layer” and “at least one second light-transmitting layer” (--not layers), --that is, only comprising one of first light-transmitting layer and one of second light-transmitting layer, so “alternately arranged”, “a number of the at least one first light-transmitting layer” and “a number of the at least one second light-transmitting layer” become ambiguous and meaningless.
Claims 2-20 are rejected as containing the deficiencies of claim 1 through their dependency from claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, cited term of “ the phase retardation film is arranged has a curvature not less than 30 millimeters” (line 2-3) is vague and renders the claims indefinite. Commonly in art, term of curvature is defined as: 1/R, R is a radius of considered curve. A curvature cannot be measured in millimeters. Curvature has an unit of radian per unit distance.
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 has same undefined issue as that of claim 3 in line 2-3.
Claims 5-8, 12 and 16-18 are rejected as containing the deficiencies of claim 4 through their dependency from claim 4.
Therefore proper amendments are required in order to clarify the scopes of the claims and overcome the rejections.
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 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouderkirk et al (US 20220350148).
Regarding Claim 1, Ouderkirk teaches an optical structure (abstract; figs. 1-4), comprising:
a lens, comprising a first surface and a second surface, wherein both the first surface and the second surface are non-planar surfaces (fig. 3, 318);
a transflective film, located at a side of the first surface away from the second surface (fig. 3, 315/315a); and
a reflective polarizing film, located at a side of the phase retardation film away from the transflective film (fig. 3, 325).
But Ouderkirk in embodiment of fig. 3 does not specifically disclose that wherein a phase retardation film, located at a side of the second surface away from the first surface or located between the transflective film and the first surface; wherein the optical structure further comprises a phase compensation structure which is located between the phase retardation film and the lens or located at a side of the phase retardation film away from the lens, and the phase compensation structure comprises at least one first light-transmitting layer and at least one second light-transmitting layer which are arranged in a stacked manner, wherein the at least one first light-transmitting layer and the at least one second light-transmitting layer are alternately arranged, and a refractive index of the first light-transmitting layer is greater than a refractive index of the second light-transmitting layer, and a number of the at least one first light-transmitting layer is equal to a number of the at least one second light-transmitting layer; and the first light-transmitting layer is attached with the phase retardation film.
However, Ouderkirk in embodiment of fig. 1 teaches that
wherein a phase retardation film, located at a side of the second surface away from the first surface or located between the transflective film and the first surface (fig. 1, 120 –retarder; ¶[0076], line 1-7, an apparatus may further include an optical retarder, such as a quarter wave retarder, located between the beamsplitter and the reflective polarizer);
wherein the optical structure further comprises a phase compensation structure which is located between the phase retardation film and the lens or located at a side of the phase retardation film away from the lens (fig. 1, 118/115a; fig. 3, 315b; ¶[0037], line 1-17, If the reflectance of the second region 315b is greater than that of the first region 315a, this may increase the efficiency of the light path from the edge of the display to the retina relative to the efficiency of the light path from the center of the display to the retina. This may compensate for brightness reductions (from any other cause) for the edges of the display image), and
the phase compensation structure comprises at least one first light-transmitting layer and at least one second light-transmitting layer which are arranged in a stacked manner (fig. 1, 118/115a; ¶[0034], line 1-14, the second region 115b as including a second layer 118. In some examples, the second region of the beamsplitter may include one or more additional reflective layers such as second layer 118; ¶[0080], line 1-26, a beamsplitter may include a metal film formed on a substrate; The layer may include a multilayer; the layer may include one or more dielectric layers),
wherein the at least one first light-transmitting layer and the at least one second light-transmitting layer are alternately arranged, and a refractive index of the first light-transmitting layer is greater than a refractive index of the second light-transmitting layer, and a number of the at least one first light-transmitting layer is equal to a number of the at least one second light-transmitting layer (see above; fig. 1, 118/115a; -- The layers of the multilayer system necessarily having different refractive indices); and
the first light-transmitting layer is attached with the phase retardation film (fig. 1, 118, 120; also see fig. 15, --all components are integrated into an eyeglasses; --118 and 120 are either directly attached or indirectly attached via the intermediate layers).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the embodiment of fig. 3 by the embodiment of fig. 1 of Ouderkirk for a purpose of providing of a higher total optical throughput and/or improved image uniformity for AR/VR devices (¶[0021], line 1-10).
Regarding Claim 2, Ouderkirk teaches that the optical structure according to claim 1, wherein the phase retardation film comprises a central region and a peripheral region surrounding the central region (fig. 1, 115a/115b), the phase compensation structure covers the peripheral region of the phase retardation film (fig.1, 115a/118), and a ratio of an area of the central region to an area of the phase retardation film is not more than 50% (fig. 4, 415, 415a, 415b, -- ratio of an area 415a to area 415 cab be estimated as about 44%).
Regarding Claim 3, Ouderkirk teaches that the optical structure according to claim 2, wherein one of the first surface and the second surface on which the phase retardation film is arranged has a curvature not less than 30 millimeters (fig. 3, 310; see above, this portion has 112 issue), and the central region is provided with a light-transmitting structure, and the light-transmitting structure is a part of one of the phase retardation film, the transflective film and the reflective polarizing film which fills the central region (fig. 1, 115b, 120, 125).
Regarding Claim 4, Ouderkirk teaches that the optical structure according to claim 2, wherein one of the first surface and the second surface on which the phase retardation film is arranged has a curvature less than 30 millimeters (fig. 3, 310; see above, this portion has 112 issue); the optical structure further comprises a third light-transmitting layer located in the central region (fig. 4, a film inside 415a), the third light-transmitting layer is arranged at the same layer as the phase compensation structure (fig. 4, 415b and a film inside 415a ) and is connected with the phase compensation structure (fig. 4, 415a/415b), and a transmittance of the third light-transmitting layer is different from a transmittance of the phase compensation structure (fig. 4, 415a/415b, -- transmittance are different as materials of the film inside 415a and 415b are different).
Regarding Claim 5, Ouderkirk teaches that the optical structure according to claim 4, wherein a difference between the transmittance of the third light-transmitting layer and the transmittance of the phase compensation structure is not more than 5% of the transmittance of the phase compensation structure (---this portion of claim is of functional claim. In product and apparatus claims –when the structure and composition recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent, see MPEP § 2112.01. As the structure and materials provided by Ouderkirk is same to that recited in the claims, then it is expected that transmission functions provided by Ouderkirk has same results as claimed. Since where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)).
Regarding Claim 6, Ouderkirk teaches that the optical structure according to claim 4, wherein the transmittance of the third light-transmitting layer is smaller than the transmittance of the phase compensation structure (---this portion of claim is of functional claim. In product and apparatus claims –when the structure and composition recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent, see MPEP § 2112.01. As the structure and materials provided by Ouderkirk is same to that recited in the claims, then it is expected that transmission functions provided by Ouderkirk has same results as claimed. Since where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)).
Regarding Claim 7, Ouderkirk teaches that the optical structure according to claim 4, wherein at least part of a surface of the third light-transmitting layer away from the lens is recessed relative to a surface of the phase compensation structure away from the lens (fig. 4, a film inside 415a).
Regarding Claim 8, Ouderkirk teaches that the optical structure according to claim 7, wherein a surface at a position where the third light-transmitting layer is connected with the phase compensation structure is recessed with relative to a surface at a position where the phase compensation structure is connected with the third light-transmitting layer (fig. 4, a film inside 415a and 415b), and a recessed depth is smaller than a thickness of the phase retardation film (--it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955)).
Regarding Claim 9, Ouderkirk teaches that the optical structure according to claim 1, wherein a thickness of the phase compensation structure is 0.5-2 microns, the refractive index of the first light-transmitting layer is 1.5-1.9, and the refractive index of the second light-transmitting layer is 1.1-1.4 (¶[0080], line 1-26, a beamsplitter may include a metal film formed on a substrate; the layer may include a metal layer (e.g., having a thickness between about 5 nm and about 500 nm,…); The layer may include a multilayer; the layer may include one or more dielectric layers; Dielectric layers may include one or more dielectric layers such as oxide layers (e.g., metal oxide layers or other oxide layers); silica, aluminum oxide, hafnium oxide, titanium dioxide, magnesium oxide, magnesium fluoride, indium tin oxide, indium gallium zinc oxide, and the like;--- aluminum oxide: n = 1.58; magnesium fluoride: n = 1.38; further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 146).
Regarding Claim 10, Ouderkirk teaches that the optical structure according to claim 1,
wherein the phase compensation structure is configured to compensate a phase of light incident on the phase compensation structure (fig. 1, 118/115a; fig. 3, 315b; ¶[0037], line 1-17, If the reflectance of the second region 315b is greater than that of the first region 315a, this may increase the efficiency of the light path from the edge of the display to the retina relative to the efficiency of the light path from the center of the display to the retina. This may compensate for brightness reductions (from any other cause) for the edges of the display image), and
an incident angle of the light incident on the phase compensation structure is 50 to 89 degrees (figs. 1-2, 115a/118; --further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955)).
Regarding Claim 11, Ouderkirk teaches that the optical structure according to claim 1,
wherein the phase compensation structure is configured to compensate a phase of light incident on the phase compensation structure (fig. 1, 118/115a; fig. 3, 315b; ¶[0037], line 1-17, If the reflectance of the second region 315b is greater than that of the first region 315a, this may increase the efficiency of the light path from the edge of the display to the retina relative to the efficiency of the light path from the center of the display to the retina. This may compensate for brightness reductions (from any other cause) for the edges of the display image), and
a wavelength range of the light incident on the phase compensation structure is 350 to 800 nanometers (¶[0036], line 1-15, The beamsplitter may include first and second regions, 315a and 315b respectively, having different reflectance (e.g., for visible light or at least one visible wavelength of light).
Regarding Claim 12, Ouderkirk teaches that the optical structure according to claim 2,
wherein the phase retardation film comprises a quarter-wave plate, the phase retardation film has a non-planar structure (fig. 1, 120 –retarder; ¶[0076], line 1-7, an apparatus may further include an optical retarder, such as a quarter wave retarder, located between the beamsplitter and the reflective polarizer), and
the phase compensation structure is configured to compensate elliptically polarized light exited from the peripheral region of the phase retardation film so that the elliptically polarized light is converted into circularly polarized light (---this portion of claim is of functional claim. In product and apparatus claims –when the structure and composition recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent, see MPEP § 2112.01. As the structure and materials provided by Ouderkirk is same to that recited in the claims, then it is expected that compensation functions provided by Ouderkirk has same results as claimed. Since where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)).
Regarding Claim 13, Ouderkirk teaches that the optical structure according to claim 1,
wherein materials of the first light-transmitting layer and the second light-transmitting layer are both oxide materials, or the material of the first light-transmitting layer comprises a liquid crystal material (¶[0080], line 1-26, a beamsplitter may include a metal film formed on a substrate; The layer may include a multilayer; the layer may include one or more dielectric layers; Dielectric layers may include one or more dielectric layers such as oxide layers (e.g., metal oxide layers or other oxide layers); silica, aluminum oxide, hafnium oxide, titanium dioxide, magnesium oxide, magnesium fluoride, indium tin oxide, indium gallium zinc oxide, and the like).
Regarding Claim 14, Ouderkirk teaches that the optical structure according to claim 13,
wherein the material of the first light-transmitting layer comprises at least one of titanium oxide, tantalum oxide and magnesium oxide, and the material of the second light-transmitting layer comprises at least one of silicon oxide, aluminum oxide and indium tin oxide (¶[0080], line 1-26, a beamsplitter may include a metal film formed on a substrate; The layer may include a multilayer; the layer may include one or more dielectric layers; Dielectric layers may include one or more dielectric layers such as oxide layers (e.g., metal oxide layers or other oxide layers); silica, aluminum oxide, hafnium oxide, titanium dioxide, magnesium oxide, magnesium fluoride, indium tin oxide, indium gallium zinc oxide, and the like).
Regarding Claim 15, Ouderkirk teaches that the optical structure according to claim 1, further comprising: a linear polarizing film, located at a side of the reflective polarizing film away from the phase retardation film (fig. 1, 125--linear reflective polarizer).
Regarding Claim 16, Ouderkirk teaches that the optical structure according to claim 4,
wherein the third light-transmitting layer comprises a metal dielectric film or a reflective dielectric film (fig. 4, 415a; ¶[0080], line 1-26, a beamsplitter may include a metal film formed on a substrate; The layer may include a multilayer; the layer may include one or more dielectric layers; Dielectric layers may include one or more dielectric layers such as oxide layers (e.g., metal oxide layers or other oxide layers); silica, aluminum oxide, hafnium oxide, titanium dioxide, magnesium oxide, magnesium fluoride, indium tin oxide, indium gallium zinc oxide, and the like).
Regarding Claim 17, Ouderkirk teaches that the optical structure according to claim 4,
wherein a thickness of the third light-transmitting layer is smaller than that of the phase compensation structure, and a thickness difference between the phase compensation structure (fig. 4, a film inside 415a and 41b) and
the third light-transmitting layer is smaller than a thickness of the phase retardation film (--it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955)).
Regarding Claim 18, Ouderkirk teaches that the optical structure according to claim 2, wherein, in a direction parallel to an optical axis of the lens, the phase compensation structure does not overlap with the central region (fig. 1, 115a, 118).
Regarding Claim 19, Ouderkirk teaches that the optical structure according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the first surface and the second surface is an aspheric surface or a spherical surface (fig. 3, 310, --both surfaces about spherical).
Regarding Claim 20, Ouderkirk teaches that a display device, comprising a display screen and the optical structure according to claim 1, wherein the display screen is located at a side of the first surface away from the second surface (fig. 1, 105; fig. 3, 305).
Examiner’s Note
Regarding the references, the Examiner cites particular figures, paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the reference(s), as applied to the claims above. Although the particular citations are representative teachings and are applied to specific limitations within the claims, other passages, internally cited references, and figures may also apply. In preparing a response, it is respectfully requested that the Applicant fully consider the references, in their entirety, as potentially disclosing or teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as fully consider the context of the passage as taught by the reference(s) or as disclosed by the Examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Jie Lei whose telephone number is (571) 272 7231. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon.-Thurs. 8:00 am to 5:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by the telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Thomas Pham can be reached on (571) 272 3689.The Fax number for the organization where this application 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.
/JIE LEI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872