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 .
Applicant’s response dated 06/11/2026 has been received and entered. Claims 1-13 are remaining pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chiu et al., US 2022/0335692 A1.
Claim 1 is anticipated by Chiu et al. figure 3 and accompanying text which discloses a reality device comprising an image system 3, wherein the image system 1 comprises:
. a first image source 10A
. a second image source 20A
. a beam splitter 30 disposed on paths of the first image beam and the second image beam
. a first lens set 60 disposed between the second image source 20A and the beam splitter 30 and comprising at least one lens element
. a second lens 200 set disposed on the paths of the first image beam and the second image beam and comprising a plurality of lens elements
. wherein the first image beam L10 and the second image beam L20 are imaged on an eye box EY1 after moving backward and forward between the lens elements of the second lens set 200
. a field of view after the first image beam L10 and the second image beam L20 exit the second lens set 200 (FOV after exit 202) is greater than a field of view before the first image beam and the second image beam enter the second lens set 200 (FOV before entering 201).
Re claim 2, wherein the image system 1 further comprises a filter device 40 disposed on the path of the second image beam L20 and located between the first lens set 60 and the second lens set 200.
Re claim 11, wherein the second lens set 200 comprising a total of three lens elements 201/202/203 with diopter (lens property, e.g., lens optical power).
Re claim 12, wherein the second lens set 200 comprises a plano-convex lens element 201 and a plano-concave lens element 203.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiu et al., US 2022/0335692 A1, in view of Gao et al., CN 107065178A.
Re claim 3, Chiu et al. disclose the claimed invention as described above except for the second image source, the first lens set, the filter device, the second lens set, and the eye box are sequentially arranged on the path of the second image beam, and form a Fourier 4F optical system. Gao et al. do disclose an using of Fourier 4F optical system over a virtual reality device (see figs 1-4, [0029], first embodiment). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a Fourier 4F optical system over the Chiu et al. an image source, a first lens set, a filter, a second lens set, and an eye-box, as shown by Gao et al., for optical filtering purposes.
Re claim 4, the modification to Chiu et al. disclose the claimed invention as described above except for the filter device is a liquid crystal spatial light modulator (SLM). Gao et al. also disclose a SLM as a well-known light modulation in an optical art (see Background technology, [0002]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to employ a liquid crystal spatial light modulator as the Chiu et al. filter device, since it is known practice in the art for controlling properties of a light wave, e.g., amplitude phase, frequency, polarization ([0003]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-10 and 13 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s only argument is that Chiu fails to disclose “a field of view after the first image beam and the second image beam exit the second lens set is greater than a field of view before the first image beam and the second image beam enter the second lens set”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s viewpoint. Particularly, as stated above, Chiu et al. clearly disclose in figure 3 that a field of view after the first image beam L10 and the second image beam L20 exit the second lens set 200 (FOV after exit 202) is greater than a field of view before the first image beam L10 and the second image beam L20 enter the second lens set 200 (FOV before entering 201)(see also noted from the below re-production of fig. 3 of Chiu et al.).
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1-4 and 11-12 stand.
PNG
media_image1.png
710
588
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUNG T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2297. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 5:00.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at 571-272-9791. 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.
/DUNG T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights