CTNF 18/669,314 CTNF 89004 DETAILED ACTION 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 02-26 AIA 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 5/20/2024 is 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 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 AIA Claim s 1-13 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 “…a focal length is a reflection surface….” (line 15-17) is vague and renders the claims indefinite. As geometrical configurations of reflection surfaces are not specified in the claim, “a focal length is a reflection surface” becomes undefined. And it is unclear how to obtain the focal length of the reflection surface, which is not disclosed in instant specification. Claims 2-12 are rejected as containing the deficiencies of claim 1 through their dependency from claim 1. Claim 13 has same undefined issue as that of claim 1 in line 16-18. Therefore proper amendments are required in order to clarify the scopes of the claims and overcome the rejections. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-5 and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (US 20020057498) . Regarding Claim 1, Kobayashi teaches an observation optical system (abstract; figs. 1-3), configured to guide light from a display device (figs. 1-3, 11) configured to display an image to an observer (figs. 1-3, E, P), the observation optical system including a lens having a display-side surface and an observation-side surface with different curvature radii (figs. 1-3, 25), and comprising: a first semi-transmissive and reflective surface (figs. 1-3, 14/15); a first λ/4 plate (figs. 1-3, 33- quarter-wave plate); a second semi-transmissive and reflective surface (figs. 1-3, 35- semitransparent reflective film); a second λ/4 plate (figs. 1-3, 38- quarter-wave plate); and a linear polarization plate (figs. 1-3, 37/39- polarizing plate), wherein the first semi-transmissive and reflective surface, the first λ/4 plate, the second semi-transmissive reflective and surface, the second λ/4 plate, and the linear polarization plate are sequentially arranged from a display side to an observation side (figs. 1-3, 11, 14/15, 33, 35, 38, 37/39, E/P), and wherein, when, out of the first semi-transmissive and reflective surface and the second semi-transmissive and reflective surface, a reflection surface having a smaller absolute value of a focal length is a reflection surface A (figs. 1-3, 35). But Kobayashi does not specifically disclose that wherein a focal length of the reflection surface A is fA, and an air conversion distance on an optical axis from a position of an exit pupil to the reflection surface A is LaA, the following inequality is satisfied: 1.0 < LaA / fA < 3.0. However, Kobayashi teaches in figs. 1-3 and ¶[0108], Table 1 the reflection surface 35 and its parameters. If assuming that the reflection surface 35 has a spherical shape, the values of fA and LaA can be estimated from the Table 1, that is, wherein a focal length of the reflection surface A is fA, and an air conversion distance on an optical axis from a position of an exit pupil to the reflection surface A is LaA, the following inequality is satisfied: < LaA / fA < 3.0, (¶[0108], Table 1, for reflection surface 35, R = -39,862; so fA = ІR/2І = 19.98; LaA can be estimated from the Table 1 as LaA = 24.208; so LaA / fA = 1.21). 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 optical system of Kobayashi to have 1.0 < LaA / fA < 3.0, for a purpose to provide an image display apparatus that is compact, affords a sufficiently long eye relief, and offers wide-field, high-quality images (¶[0013], line 1-4). Regarding Claim 2, Kobayashi that the observation optical system according to claim 1, wherein, when a focal length of the observation optical system is f, the following inequality is satisfied: 0.60 < IfAI / f < 1.50. (¶[0108], Table 1, for reflection surface 35, R = -39,862; so fA = ІR/2І = 19.98; ¶[0092], line 1-4, the focal length of the eyepiece optical system 12 as a whole is ft = 18.000 mm; so IfAI / f = 1.11). Regarding Claim 3, Kobayashi that the observation optical system according to claim 1, wherein each of the first semi-transmissive and reflective surface and the second semi- transmissive and reflective surface is a half mirror (¶[0059], line 1-5, a flat-surfaced half mirror is used as the combiner 14; ¶[0062], line 1-9, The semitransparent reflective film 35, like a common half mirror, partially reflects light and partially transmits light). Regarding Claim 4, Kobayashi that the observation optical system according to The observation optical system according to wherein the first semi-transmissive and reflective surface is a polarization beam splitter, and wherein the second semi-transmissive and reflective surface is a half mirror (figs. 2-3, 15- polarization beam splitter prism; ¶[0062], line 1-9, The semitransparent reflective film 35, like a common half mirror, partially reflects light and partially transmits light). Regarding Claim 5, Kobayashi that the observation optical system according to claim 1, wherein the reflection surface A is a concave surface that is concave toward the observation side (figs. 1-3, 35). Regarding Claim 8, Kobayashi that the observation optical system according to claim 1, wherein first polarized light is incident from the display side on the first semi- transmissive and reflective surface, wherein a polarization direction of the first polarized light and a polarization direction of light passing through the polarization plate are parallel to each other, and wherein a direction of a slow axis of the first λ/4 plate and a direction of a slow axis of the second λ/4 plate are parallel to each other (---this portion of claim is of function/property 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 Kobayashi are same to that recited in the claims, then it is expected that light beam transmission functions/properties provided by Kobayashi have 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 9, Kobayashi that the observation optical system according to claim 1, wherein first polarized light is incident from the display side on the first semi- transmissive and reflective surface, wherein a polarization direction of first polarized light and a polarization direction of light passing through the polarization plate are perpendicular to each other, and wherein a direction of a slow axis of the first λ/4 plate and a direction of a slow axis of the second λ/4 plate are perpendicular to each other (---this portion of claim is of function/property 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 Kobayashi are same to that recited in the claims, then it is expected that light beam transmission functions/properties provided by Kobayashi have 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 10, Kobayashi that the observation optical system according to claim 1, wherein the light from the display device, sequentially from the display side, passes through, from the display side, the first semi-transmissive and reflective surface and the first λ/4 plate, is reflected by the second semi-transmissive and reflective surface, passes through the first λ/4 plate, is reflected by the first semi-transmissive and reflective surface, and passes through the first λ/4 plate, the second semi-transmissive and reflective surface, the first semi-transmissive and reflective surface, the second λ/4 plate, and the linear polarization plate (figs. 1-3, 11, 14/15, 33, 35, 38, 37/39, E/P; further, this portion of claim is of function/property 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 Kobayashi are same to that recited in the claims, then it is expected that light beam transmission functions/properties provided by Kobayashi have 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 11, Kobayashi that the observation optical system according to claim 1, wherein, when an absolute value of an angle of outside light incident from the observation side on the observation optical system is ω, the following inequality is satisfied: 0° < ω < 45°. (¶[0059], line 1-8, The angle θ between a normal to the combiner 14 and the optical axis Ax of the eyepiece optical system 12 is in the range form 30° to 40°). Regarding Claim 12, Kobayashi that the observation optical system according to claim 1, wherein, when a focal length of the observation optical system is f and a curvature radius of the reflection surface A is R, the following inequality is satisfied: -6.0 < R/f <-1.0. (¶[0108], Table 1, for reflection surface 35, R = -39,862; ¶[0092], line 1-4, the focal length of the eyepiece optical system 12 as a whole is ft = 18.000 mm; so R / f = -2.22). Regarding Claim 13, Kobayashi an image display apparatus (abstract; figs. 1-3) comprising: a display device configured to display an image (figs. 1-3, 11, 12); and an observation optical system configured to guide light from the display device (figs. 1-3, 11) to an observer (figs. 1-3, E, P) and including a lens having a display-side surface and an observation-side surface with different curvature radii (figs. 1-3, 25), the observation optical system including: a first semi-transmissive and reflective surface (figs. 1-3, 14/15); a first λ/4 plate (figs. 1-3, 38- quarter-wave plate); a second semi-transmissive and reflective surface (figs. 1-3, 35- semitransparent reflective film); a second λ/4 plate (figs. 1-3, 38- quarter-wave plate); and a polarization plate (figs. 1-3, 37/39- polarizing plate), wherein the first semi-transmissive and reflective surface, the first λ/4 plate, the second semi-transmissive and reflective surface, the second λ/4 plate, and the polarization plate are sequentially arranged from a display side to an observation side (figs. 1-3, 11, 14/15, 33, 35, 38, 37/39, E/P), wherein, when, out of the first semi-transmissive and reflective surface and the second semi-transmissive and reflective surface, a reflection surface having a smaller absolute value of a focal length is a reflection surface A (figs. 1-3, 35). But Kobayashi does not specifically disclose that wherein a focal length of the reflection surface A is fA, and an air conversion distance on an optical axis from a position of an exit pupil to the reflection surface A is LaA, the following inequality is satisfied: 1.0 < LaA / fA < 3.0. However, Kobayashi teaches in figs. 1-3 and ¶[0108], Table 1 the reflection surface 35 and its parameters. If assuming that the reflection surface 35 has a spherical shape, the values of fA and LaA can be estimated from the Table 1, that is, wherein a focal length of the reflection surface A is fA, and an air conversion distance on an optical axis from a position of an exit pupil to the reflection surface A is LaA, the following inequality is satisfied: < LaA / fA < 3.0, (¶[0108], Table 1, for reflection surface 35, R = -39,862; so fA = ІR/2І = 19.98; LaA can be estimated from the Table 1 as LaA = 24.208; so LaA / fA = 1.21). 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 optical system of Kobayashi to have 1.0 < LaA / fA < 3.0, for a purpose to provide an image display apparatus that is compact, affords a sufficiently long eye relief, and offers wide-field, high-quality images (¶[0013], line 1-4) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (US 20020057498) in a view of Tatsumi et al (US 20220299774) . Regarding Claim 6, Kobayashi discloses as set forth above but does not specifically disclose that the observation optical system according to claim 1, wherein the observation optical system includes a shielding member arranged closest to the observation side. However, Tatsumi teaches a head mounted display (abstract; figs. 1-4), wherein the observation optical system includes a shielding member arranged closest to the observation side (figs. 1-2, 5, 23; fig. 4, 22L/22R, 23L/23R; abstract, line 1-8, A louver includes light shielding portions made of a light shielding material. The light shielding portions are provided inside a plate-like base portion made of a light transmitting material). 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 optical system of Kobayashi by the head mounted display of Tatsumi for a purpose of providing of a head mounted display wherein the external light ghost can be reduced, and the image quality of the display image can be significantly improved (¶[0104], line 1-10). Regarding Claim 7, Kobayashi- Tatsumi combination teaches that the observation optical system according to claim 6, wherein the shielding member has a reed shape and is a louver device arranged in a direction perpendicular to the optical axis ((figs. 1-2, 5, 23, fig. 4, 22L/22R, 23L/23R, as disclosed in Tatsumi). 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 Application/Control Number: 18/669,314 Page 2 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/669,314 Page 3 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/669,314 Page 4 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/669,314 Page 5 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/669,314 Page 6 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/669,314 Page 7 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/669,314 Page 8 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/669,314 Page 9 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/669,314 Page 10 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/669,314 Page 11 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/669,314 Page 12 Art Unit: 2872
Prosecution Insights