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 .
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hudman et al (US Publication No.: US 2024/0310633 A1, “Hudman” in view of Chen et al (US Publication No.: US 2023/0341697 A1, “Chen”).
Regarding Claim 1, Hudman discloses an optical system, (Figures 1-10), comprising in order from a pupil plane side to a display plane side (Figure 5, pupil plane side 508, display plane side 504):
A first reflective polarizing plate (Figure 5, first reflecting polarizing plate 524-2);
A first lens (Figure 5, first lens 512-2);
A half mirror (Figure 5, half mirror 516);
A second lens (Figure 5, second lens 512-1);
A second reflective polarizing plate (Figure 5, second reflective polarizing plate 524-1),
A first ¼ wavelength plate arranged between a pupil plane and the half mirror (Figure 5, first ¼ wavelength plate 520-2);
A second ¼ wavelength plate arranged between the half mirror and a display plane (Figure 5, second ¼ wavelength plate 520-1), wherein
The first lens has a convex surface on the pupil plane side at a paraxial position (Figure 5 clearly discloses the first lens 512-2 having a convex surface on a pupil plane side at a paraxial position),
The second lens has a convex surface on the display plane side at the paraxial position (Figure 5 clearly discloses the second lens 512-1 having a convex surface on a display plane side at a paraxial position).
Hudman fails to disclose that the first and second lens have positive refractive power, where the optical system satisfies the following conditional expression (1) and (2): (1) 14<r1/T1<250 (2) 0.7<(D2/f2)*100<5.0, where r1: paraxial radius of curvature of a surface of the first lens on the pupil plane side, T1: distance on an optical axis from a surface of the first lens on the display plane side to a surface of the second lens on the pupil plane side, D2: thickness of the second lens on the optical axis, and f2: focal length of the second lens.
However, Chen discloses a similar optical system where the first and second lens have positive refractive power (Chen, Paragraph 0065 discloses first lens 110 has positive refractive power, where Paragraph 0067 discloses second lens 130 has positive refractive power), the first lens has a convex surface on the pupil plane side at a paraxial position (Chen, Paragraph 0065); the second lens has a convex surface on the display plane side at the paraxial position (Chen, Paragraph 0067); where the optical system satisfies the following conditional expression (1) and (2):
(1) 14<r1/T1<250 (Chen, Table 2 discloses r1=172.415 and T1=11.156, so r1/T1=15.45, which falls within the claimed range)
(2) 0.7<(D2/f2)*100<5.0 (Chen, Table 2 discloses D2=6.403 and f2=173.54, so (D2/f2)*100=3.69, which falls within the claimed range), where r1: paraxial radius of curvature of a surface of the first lens on the pupil plane side, T1: distance on an optical axis from a surface of the first lens on the display plane side to a surface of the second lens on the pupil plane side, D2: thickness of the second lens on the optical axis, and f2: focal length of the second lens.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the optical system as disclosed by Hudman to have particular refractive powers and properties as disclosed by Chen. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of optimizing image quality (Chen, Paragraphs 0065-0092).
Regarding Claim 2, Hudman in view of Chen discloses the optical system according to claim 1.
Hudman fails to disclose that the optical system satisfies following conditional expression (3): (3) 55<f2/hm2<3100 where f2: focal length of the second lens, and hm2: distance on the optical axis from a surface of the half mirror on the display plane side to the surface of the second lens on the pupil plane side.
However, Chen discloses a similar optical system where the optical system satisfies following conditional expression (3): (3) 55<f2/hm2<3100 where f2: focal length of the second lens, and hm2: distance on the optical axis from a surface of the half mirror on the display plane side to the surface of the second lens on the pupil plane side (Chen, Table 2 discloses f2=173.54 and hm2=.100, so f2/hm2=1735.4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the optical system as disclosed by Hudman to have particular focal properties as disclosed by Chen. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of optimizing image quality (Chen, Paragraphs 0065-0092).
Regarding Claim 3, Hudman in view of Chen discloses the optical system according to claim 1.
Hudman fails to disclose that the optical system satisfies following conditional expression (4): (4) 3<f2/f<11 where f2: focal length of the second lens, and f: focal length of an entire system of the optical system.
However, Chen discloses a similar optical system where the optical system satisfies following conditional expression (4): (4) 3<f2/f<11 where f2: focal length of the second lens, and f: focal length of an entire system of the optical system (Chen, Table 2 discloses f2=173.54 and f=34.55, so f2/f=5.022, which falls within the claimed range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the optical system as disclosed by Hudman to have particular focal properties as disclosed by Chen. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of optimizing image quality (Chen, Paragraphs 0065-0092).
Regarding Claim 4, Hudman in view of Chen discloses the optical system according to claim 1.
Hudman fails to disclose that the optical system satisfies following conditional expression (5): (5) 10<(f1+f2)/f<22 where f1: focal length of the first lens, f2: focal length of the second lens, and f: focal length of an entire system of the optical system.
However, Chen discloses a similar system where the optical system satisfies following conditional expression (5): (5) 10<(f1+f2)/f<22 where f1: focal length of the first lens, f2: focal length of the second lens, and f: focal length of an entire system of the optical system (Chen, Table 2 discloses f1=315.91 and f2=173.53 and f-34.55, so (f1+f2)/f=14.17, which falls within the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the optical system as disclosed by Hudman to have particular focal properties as disclosed by Chen. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of optimizing image quality (Chen, Paragraphs 0065-0092).
Regarding Claim 5, Hudman in view of Chen discloses the optical system according to claim 1.
Hudman fails to disclose that the optical system satisfies following conditional expression (6): (6) 0.25<r1/f1<1.00 where r1: paraxial radius of curvature of the surface of the first lens on the pupil plane side, and f1: focal length of the first lens.
However, Chen discloses a similar optical system where the optical system satisfies following conditional expression (6): (6) 0.25<r1/f1<1.00 where r1: paraxial radius of curvature of the surface of the first lens on the pupil plane side, and f1: focal length of the first lens (Chen, Table 2 discloses r1=172.415 and f1=315.91, so r1/f1=.55, which falls within the claimed range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the optical system as disclosed by Hudman to have particular focal properties as disclosed by Chen. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of optimizing image quality (Chen, Paragraphs 0065-0092).
Regarding Claim 6, Hudman in view of Chen discloses the optical system according to claim 1.
Hudman fails to disclose that the optical system satisfies following conditional expression (7): (7) 0.1<r1/(f1+f2)<0.5 where r1: paraxial radius of curvature of the surface of the first lens on the pupil plane side, f1: focal length of the first lens, and f2: focal length of the second lens.
However, Chen discloses a similar optical system where the optical system satisfies following conditional expression (7): (7) 0.1<r1/(f1+f2)<0.5 where r1: paraxial radius of curvature of the surface of the first lens on the pupil plane side, f1: focal length of the first lens, and f2: focal length of the second lens (Chen, Table 2 discloses f1=315.91 and f2=173.53 and r1=172.415, so r1/(f1+f2)=.35, which falls within the claimed range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the optical system as disclosed by Hudman to have particular focal properties as disclosed by Chen. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of optimizing image quality (Chen, Paragraphs 0065-0092).
Regarding Claim 7, Hudman in view of Chen discloses the optical system according to claim 1.
Hudman fails to disclose that the optical system satisfies following conditional expression (8): (8) -1.00<r4/f2<-0.25 where r4: paraxial radius of curvature of a surface of the second lens on the display plane side, and f2: focal length of the second lens.
However, Chen discloses a similar optical system where the optical system satisfies following conditional expression (8): (8) -1.00<r4/f2<-0.25 where r4: paraxial radius of curvature of a surface of the second lens on the display plane side, and f2: focal length of the second lens (Chen, Table 2 discloses r4=-128.431 and f2=173.64, so r4/f2=-.74, which falls within the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the optical system as disclosed by Hudman to have particular focal properties as disclosed by Chen. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of optimizing image quality (Chen, Paragraphs 0065-0092).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIAM QURESHI whose telephone number is (571)272-4434. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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 Caley can be reached at 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 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.
/MARIAM QURESHI/Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights