Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/641,419

OPTICAL SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Apr 21, 2024
Examiner
QURESHI, MARIAM
Art Unit
2871
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Sharp Display Technology Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
74%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 1m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 74% — above average
74%
Career Allow Rate
463 granted / 624 resolved
+6.2% vs TC avg
Strong +25% interview lift
Without
With
+25.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 1m
Avg Prosecution
51 currently pending
Career history
675
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
57.7%
+17.7% vs TC avg
§102
27.6%
-12.4% vs TC avg
§112
12.6%
-27.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 624 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 . 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 21, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601893
OPTICAL IMAGING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12596248
PATTERN ELECTRODE STRUCTURE FOR ELECTRO-WETTING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12596272
CORRESPONDENCE GENERATION METHOD, CONTROL METHOD, APPARATUS AND SYSTEM FOR MICRO RING MODULATOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12596254
HEAD-MOUNTABLE DEVICE WITH CONNECTABLE ACCESSORIES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12596257
DISPLAYS INCLUDING LIGHT-GUIDE OPTICAL ELEMENTS WITH TWO-DIMENSIONAL EXPANSION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 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
74%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+25.2%)
2y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 624 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