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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s response of 5/31/2026. In that response, Applicant amended the specification, amended the drawings, amended claims 1, 4-7, 10-11, 17 and cancelled claims 2-3 and 18-20.
DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/674,772 filed on 5/24/2024 is presented for examination by the Examiner.
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Drawings
The objection to the drawings has been overcome.
Specification
Th objection to the specification has been overcome.
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 1, 4, 7, 10, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 116027551A, hereinafter, “Zhang”) in view of Khan et al. (US 2020/0166738, hereinafter, “Khan”).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses (reference paragraphs refer to the English translation and figures refer to the original) a display apparatus (Fig. 1), comprising:
one or more display screens 10 (Fig. 1, [0035]); and
one or more optical elements corresponding to the one or more display screens respectively (Fig. 1, [0037]);
wherein for each optical element and its corresponding display screen, the optical element is disposed at a light exit side of the display screen, the optical element includes a first lens 22 at a side away from the display screen, the first lens includes a first curved surface 222 away from the display screen, and the first curved surface is a concave surface facing toward the display screen (Fig. 1, [0052]).
wherein the first lens further comprises a second curved surface 221 close to the display screen, and the second curved surface protrudes toward the display screen (Fig. 1);
wherein the first curved surface is a cylindrical surface or a free-form surface, and the second curved surface is a cylindrical surface or a free-form surface ([0069]);
wherein the optical element further comprises: a first reflective polarizer 24, a first quarter-wave plate 23, and a first semi-transmissive and semi-reflective film 25 wherein the first semi-transmissive and semi-reflective film 25 is located between the first quarter-wave plate 23 and the display screen 10 (Fig. 1, [0037]);
In one embodiment, the first quarter-wave plate 23 is disposed on the first lens away from the display, and the first reflective polarizer 24 is disposed on a side of the first quarter-wave plate away from the first lens (Fig. 10, [0073]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Zhang so that the first lens 22 of the embodiment of Fig. 1 has the first reflective polarizer 24/ first quarter-wave plate 23 on its light emitting side, as taught by Zhan in Fig. 10, for making the first lens a better light folding unit ([0007] in Zhang, light is reflected multiple times from the light emitting side of the first lens).
Zhang does not disclose wherein the first curved surface is a cylindrical surface.
Khan discloses a head mounted display including optical elements 20 and a display 40 (Fig. 1, [0019]). In one embodiment, the optical elements include lenses having a cylindrical surface (Fig. 8, 9, [0048]).
Both Zhang and Khan disclose virtual reality display systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Zhang so that the first lens 22 has a first curved surface which is cylindrical, as taught by Khan, to make for a more uniform thickness across the lens and thereby improve lens moldability ([0048] in Khan).
Regarding claim 4, Zhang/Khan discloses the display apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the second curved surface 221 is a free-form surface ([0069] in Zhang).
Zhang/Khan does not disclose wherein the first semi-transmissive and semi-reflective film is disposed on the second curved surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Zhang/Khan so that they first lens 22 has a reflective polarizer/quarter-wave plate combination on the light emitting side and a semi-transmissive and semi-reflective film on the other side, for making the first lens a light folding unit by sequentially reflecting therein the incident light ([0066] in Zhang).
Regarding claim 7, Zhang/Khan discloses the display apparatus according to claim 1, wherein
the optical element further comprises a second lens 21 disposed between the first lens 22 and the display screen 10, the second lens comprises a third curved surface 212 away from the display screen and a fourth curved surface 211 close to the display screen, and the first curved surface and the fourth curved surface each are a free-form surface (Fig. 8, [0069] in Zhang).
Regarding claim 10, Zhang/Khan discloses the display apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the display apparatus comprises two display modules that are arranged side by side along a first direction, and each of the display modules comprises one said optical element and its corresponding display screen, wherein the cylindrical surface in each of the optical elements is curved in the first direction (Khan discloses a head mounted display including optical elements 20 and a pair of displays 40 (Fig. 1, [0019]). In one embodiment, the optical elements include lenses having a cylindrical surface (Fig. 8, 9, [0048]).
Regarding claim 16, Zhang/Zhang discloses the display apparatus according to claim 1, wherein
the display screen is located in the optical element from a viewing angle perpendicular to the display screen (Fig. 1 in Zhang).
Regarding claim 17, Zhang discloses an electronic device, comprising a frame and a display apparatus 20 (Fig. 1, [0083]), wherein the display apparatus comprises:
one or more display screens 10 (Fig. 1, [0035]); and
one or more optical elements corresponding to the one or more display screens respectively (Fig. 1, [0037]);
wherein for each optical element and its corresponding display screen, the optical element is disposed at a light exit side of the display screen, the optical element includes a first lens 22 at a side away from the display screen, the first lens includes a first curved surface 222 away from the display screen, and the first curved surface is a concave surface facing toward the display screen (Fig. 1, [0052]).
wherein the first lens further comprises a second curved surface 221 close to the display screen, and the second curved surface protrudes toward the display screen (Fig. 1);
wherein the first curved surface is a cylindrical surface or a free-form surface, and the second curved surface is a cylindrical surface or a free-form surface ([0069]);
wherein the optical element further comprises: a first reflective polarizer 24, a first quarter-wave plate 23, and a first semi-transmissive and semi-reflective film 25 wherein the first semi-transmissive and semi-reflective film 25 is located between the first quarter-wave plate 23 and the display screen 10 (Fig. 1, [0037]);
In one embodiment, the first quarter-wave plate 23 is disposed on the first lens away from the display, and the first reflective polarizer 24 is disposed on a side of the first quarter-wave plate away from the first lens (Fig. 10, [0073]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Zhang so that the first lens 22 of the embodiment of Fig. 1 has the first reflective polarizer 24/ first quarter-wave plate 23 on its light emitting side, as taught by Zhan in Fig. 10, for making the first lens a better light folding unit ([0007] in Zhang, light is reflected multiple times from the light emitting side of the first lens).
Zhang does not disclose wherein the first curved surface is a cylindrical surface.
Khan discloses a head mounted display including optical elements 20 and a display 40 (Fig. 1, [0019]). In one embodiment, the optical elements include lenses having a cylindrical surface (Fig. 8, 9, [0048]).
Both Zhang and Khan disclose virtual reality display systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Zhang so that the first lens 22 has a first curved surface which is cylindrical, as taught by Khan, to make for a more uniform thickness across the lens and thereby improve lens moldability ([0048] in Khan).
Claims 12-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, Khan in view of Tohara et al. (US 2020/0158953, hereinafter, “Tohara”) and further in view of Shikama (US 2002/0154418, hereinafter, “Shikama”).
Regarding claim 12, Zhang/Khan discloses the display apparatus according to claim 1.
Zhang/Khan does not disclose wherein the display apparatus comprises two display modules that are arranged side by side along a first direction, and each of the display modules comprises one said optical element and its corresponding display screen.
Tohara discloses an HMD comprising two display modules arranged side by side along a fist direction, and each of the display modules comprising lenses and a corresponding display screen (Fig. 1, [0024]). In Tohara, each of the lenses (e.g., 306) has a first profile edge (left side of 306 in Fig. 13B) and a second profile edge (opposite to the first profile) wherein the second profile edge is located between the first profile edge and the other of the display modules (corresponding to lens 304).
Both Zhang and Tohara disclose HMD devices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Zhang/Khan so that the display apparatus includes an optical element/lens associated with a corresponding display screen, as taught by Tohara, for improving the viewing experience of eth user (i.e., displaying images to both eyes).
Zhang/Khan/Tohara does not disclose in each of the display modules: a main optical axis of the optical element passes through the display screen and is located at a side of a geometric center of the display screen close to the other of the display modules (that is, there is an offset between the optical axis of the lens and the axis passing through the geometric center of the display screen). In Tohara, the above two axes coincide.
Shikama discloses an off-axis projection lens system in which there is an offset between the optical axis of the lens IMC and the axis passing through the geometric center of the display screen 6 (Fig. 18B, [0004], [0008]).
Both Zhang and Shikama disclose projection systems involving display screens and optical lenses.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Zhang/Khan/Tohara so that the optical lens axis and the display screen geometric center axis have an offset, as taught by Shikama, for improving the performance of the optical system by preventing optical interference effects ([0098] in Shikama).
It is noted that in the display apparatus of Zhang/Khan/Tohara/Shikama, because of the offset between the two axes, a minimum distance from the first profile edge to the main optical axis is different than a minimum distance from the second profile edge to the main optical axis.
The parameter of the distance between the edge profile of a side of the lens and the optical axis is a result-effective variable, i.e., it is recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, effecting the image seen by the user.
Zhang/Khan/Tohara/Shikama discloses the claimed invention except for the claimed relation between the distance of the optical axis and the two left and right profile edges of the lens.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Zhang/Khan/Tohara/Shikama so that a minimum distance from the first profile edge to the main optical axis is greater than a minimum distance from the second profile edge to the main optical axis, since 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).
In the current instance, the distance between the edge profile of a side of the lens and the optical axis is an art recognized result-effective variable in that it affects the performance of the display apparatus.
Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize the relation between the distance of the optical axis and the two left and right profile edges of the lens because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process”.
Regarding claim 13, Zhang/Khan/Tohara/Shikama discloses the display apparatus according to claim 12, wherein
in each of the display modules, the display screen 309 comprises a third profile edge and a fourth profile edge that are oppositely arranged along the first direction, the fourth profile edge is located between the third profile edge and the other of the display modules (Fig. 12B in Tohara).
Zhang/Khan/Tohara/Shikama does not disclose wherein from the viewing angle perpendicular to the display screen, a minimum distance from the third profile edge to the main optical axis is greater than a minimum distance from the fourth profile edge to the main optical axis.
It is noted that in the display apparatus of Zhang/Khan/Tohara/Shikama, it appears that a minimum distance from the third profile edge to the main optical axis is the same as a minimum distance from the fourth profile edge to the main optical axis (Fig. 12B in Tohara).
The parameter of the distance between the edge profile of a side of the display screen and the optical axis is a result-effective variable, i.e., it is recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, effecting the image seen by the user.
Zhang/Khan/Tohara/Shikama discloses the claimed invention except for the claimed relation between the distance of the optical axis and the two profile edges of the display screen.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Zhang/Khan/Tohara/Shikama so that a minimum distance from the third profile edge to the main optical axis is greater than a minimum distance from the fourth profile edge to the main optical axis, since 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).
In the current instance, the distance between the edge profile of a side of the display screen and the optical axis is an art recognized result-effective variable in that it affects the performance of the display apparatus.
Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize the relation between the distance of the optical axis and the two side profile edges of the display screen because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process”.
Regarding claim 14, Zhang/Khan/Tohara/Shikama discloses the display apparatus according to claim 13, wherein
each of the display modules further comprises a first side and a second side that are oppositely arranged along a second direction, the second direction being perpendicular to the first direction and parallel to the display screen of the display module (Fig.12B in Tohara).
Zhang/Khan/Tohara/Shikama does not disclose in each of the display modules: a minimum distance from a portion of the second profile edge close to the first side to the main optical axis is greater than a minimum distance from a portion of the second profile edge close to the second side to the main optical axis; and a minimum distance from a portion of the fourth profile edge close to the first side to the main optical axis is greater than a minimum distance from a portion of the fourth profile edge close to the second side to the main optical axis.
It is noted that in the display apparatus of Zhang/Khan/Tohara/Shikama, because of the offset between the two axes, a minimum distance from the a portion of the second profile edge close to the first side to the main optical axis is different than a minimum distance from a portion of the second profile edge close to the second side to the main optical axis, and a minimum distance from a portion of the fourth profile edge close to the first side to the main optical axis is different than a minimum distance from a portion of the fourth profile edge close to the second side to the main optical axis.
The parameters of the distance between the edge profiles of the lens relative to the top and bottom sides of the display module to the main optical axis and the distance between the edge profiles of the display screen relative to the top and bottom sides of the display module to the main optical axis are a result-effective variable, i.e., it is recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, effecting the image seen by the user.
Zhang/Khan/Tohara/Shikama discloses the claimed invention except for the claimed relation between the distance between the edge profiles of the lens relative to the top and bottom sides of the display module to the main optical axis and the distance between the edge profiles of the display screen relative to the top and bottom sides of the display module to the main optical axis.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Zhang/Khan/Tohara/Shikama so that, since 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).
In the current instance, the distance between the edge profile of a side of the display screen and the optical axis is an art recognized result-effective variable in that it affects the performance of the display apparatus.
Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize the relation between the distance between the edge profiles of the lens relative to the top and bottom sides of the display module to the main optical axis and the distance between the edge profiles of the display screen relative to the top and bottom sides of the display module to the main optical axis, because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process”.
Regarding claim 15, Zhang/Khan/Tohara/Shikama discloses the display apparatus according to claim 12, wherein
in each of the display modules, the display screen has a virtual intersection point intersecting the main optical axis, and a line connecting the virtual intersection point and the geometric center of the display screen is parallel to the first direction (Fig. 11B, 12B in Tohara after the offset).
Regarding claim 20, Zhang/Khan discloses the electronic device according to claim 17.
Zhang/Khan does not disclose wherein the display apparatus comprises two display modules that are arranged side by side along a first direction, and each of the display modules comprises one said optical element and its corresponding display screen.
Tohara discloses an HMD comprising two display modules arranged side by side a long a fist direction, and each of the display modules comprising lenses and a corresponding display screen (Fig. 1, [0024]). In Tohara, each of the lenses (e.g., 306) has a first profile edge (left side of 306 in Fig. 13B) and a second profile edge (opposite to the first profile) wherein the second profile edge is located between the first profile edge and the other of the display modules (corresponding to lens 304).
Both Zhang and Tohara disclose HMD devices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Zhang/Khan so that the display apparatus includes an optical element/lens associated with a corresponding display screen, as taught by Tohara, for improving the viewing experience of eth user (i.e., displaying images to both eyes).
Zhang/Khan/Tohara does not disclose in each of the display modules: a main optical axis of the optical element passes through the display screen and is located at a side of a geometric center of the display screen close to the other of the display modules (that is, there is an offset between the optical axis of the lens and the axis passing through the geometric center of the display screen). In Tohara, the above two axes coincide.
Shikama discloses an off-axis projection lens system in which there is an offset between the optical axis of the lens IMC and the axis passing through the geometric center of the display screen 6 (Fig. 18B, [0004], [0008]).
Both Zhang and Shikama disclose projection systems involving display screens and optical lenses.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Zhang/Khan/Tohara so that the optical lens axis and the display screen geometric center axis have an offset, as taught by Shikama, for improving the performance of the optical system by preventing optical interference effects ([0098] in Shikama).
It is noted that in the display apparatus of Zhang/Khan/Tohara/Shikama, because of the offset between the two axes, a minimum distance from the first profile edge to the main optical axis is different than a minimum distance from the second profile edge to the main optical axis.
The parameter of the distance between the edge profile of a side of the lens and the optical axis is a result-effective variable, i.e., it is recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, effecting the image seen by the user.
Zhang/Khan/Tohara/Shikama discloses the claimed invention except for the claimed relation between the distance of the optical axis and the left and right profile edges of the lens.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Zhang/Khan/Tohara/Shikama so that a minimum distance from the first profile edge to the main optical axis is greater than a minimum distance from the second profile edge to the main optical axis, since 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).
In the current instance, the distance between the edge profile of a side of the lens and the optical axis is an art recognized result-effective variable in that it affects the performance of the display apparatus.
Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize the relation between the distance of the optical axis and the two left and right profile edges of the lens because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process”.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, Khan in view of Zozgornik (US 2019/0234573, hereinafter, “Zozgornik”).
Regarding claim 11, Zhang/Khan discloses the display apparatus according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the first curved surface and the second curved surface is a cylindrical surface (Fig. 8, 9, [0048] in Khan).
Zhang/Khan does not disclose wherein the cylindrical surface has a curvature radius greater than or equal to 100 mm, and less than or equal to 2000 mm.
Zozgornik discloses a laser-based light source for a vehicle headlight (Abstract). In one embodiment, Zozgornik discloses that cylindrical lenes 153 are used to direct light from the light source 110 towards a light converting unit 130. The radius of the cylindrical lenses is between 1 mm and 10 mm ([Fig. 1, [0050]).
Both Zhang and Zozgornik disclose illumination systems.
The parameter of the diameter of the cylinder lens is a are result-effective variable, i.e., it is recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, effecting the usability of the cemented lens, for example, affecting the size of the lens module ([0048] in Khan).
Zhang/Khan/Zozgornik discloses the claimed invention except for the claimed range for the radius of the cylindrical surface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Zhang/Khan so that radius of the cylindrical surface lies within the claimed range, since 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). In the current instance, the radius of the cylindrical surface is an art recognized result-effective variable in that it affects its usability in a lens module, as taught by Khan.
Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize the radius of the cylindrical surface because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process”.
Claims 5, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, Khan in view of Kubala et al. (US 5,982,549, hereinafter, “Kubala”).
Regarding claim 5, Zhang/Khan discloses the display apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the optical element further comprises a second lens 21 disposed between the first lens 22 and the display screen 10, the second lens comprises a third surface 212 away from the display screen and a fourth curved surface 211 close to the display screen, the second curved surface, and the fourth curved surface each are a free-form surface (Fig. 1, [0069] in Zhang).
Zhang/Khan does not disclose the third surface being free-form curved. In one embodiment of Khan (Fig. 8) the third surface is free-formed curved.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Zhang/Khan so that the third surface is free-form curved, so that the image light can propagate in a reasonable path within the light folding unit 20 ([0069] in Zhang).
Zhang/Khan does not disclose the optical element further comprises a first anti-reflection film and a second anti-reflection film, and the first semi-transmissive and semi-reflective film is disposed on one of the second curved surface, the third curved surface and the fourth curved surface, and the first anti-reflection film and the second anti-reflection film are disposed on other two of the second curved surface, the third curved surface and the fourth curved surface, respectively.
In Zhang/Khan, the semi-reflective film is disposed on the second curved surface (see claim 4).
Kubala discloses a wide field of view vision system (Fig. 1, Abstract). In one embodiment, Kubala discloses that the lens surfaces that are in contact with air are preferably anti-reflection (AR) coated (col. 6, lines 48-50).
Both Zhang and Kubala disclose optical systems that include lenses that are in contact with air.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Zhang/Khan so that they second lens 22 has an AR film on each side, with the semi-reflective film disposed on the second curved surface, as taught by Kubala, for achieving better performance of the virtual reality display system by avoiding optical noise due to reflections.
Regarding claim 8, Zhang/Khan discloses the display apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the second curved surface is a cylindrical surface (Fig. 8, 9, [0048] in Khan), the third curved surface is a free-form surface ([0069] in Zhang).
Zhang/Khan does not disclose the optical element further comprises: a second semi-transmissive and semi-reflective film, a fifth anti-reflective film, a sixth anti-reflective film, a second reflective polarizer disposed on the second curved surface, and a second quarter-wave plate disposed on a side of the second reflective polarizer away from the second curved surface, the fifth anti-reflection film is disposed on the first curved surface, the second semi-transmissive and semi-reflective film is disposed on one of the third curved surface and the fourth curved surface, and the sixth anti-reflection film is disposed on another one of the third curved surface and the fourth curved surface.
Kubala discloses a wide field of view vision system (Fig. 1, Abstract). In one embodiment, Kubala discloses that the lens surfaces that are in contact with air are preferably anti-reflection (AR) coated (col. 6, lines 48-50).
Both Zhang and Kubala disclose optical systems that include lenses that are in contact with air.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Zhang/Khan so that the first lens 22 has an AR film on one side and the reflective polarizer/quarter-wave plate combination on the other side and the second lens 21 has a semi-transmissive and semi-reflective film 25 on one side and an AR film on the other side, as taught by Kubala, since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of elements, without modification of the operation of the device only involves routine skill in the art. In re Japikse 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), for achieving better performance of the virtual reality display system by avoiding optical noise due to reflections and ray folding in the first lens.
Regarding claim 9, Zhang/Khan discloses the display apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the second curved surface is a free-form surface ([0069] in Zhang), the third curved surface is a cylindrical surface (Fig. 8, 9, [0048] in Khan).
Zhang/Khan does not disclose the optical element further comprises: a third quarter-wave plate disposed on the third curved surface, a third reflective polarizer disposed on a side of the third quarter-wave plate away from the third curved surface, a third semi-transmissive and semi-reflective film disposed on the four-curved surface, a seventh anti-reflective film disposed on the first curved surface, and an eighth anti-reflective film disposed on the second curved surface.
Kubala discloses a wide field of view vision system (Fig. 1, Abstract). In one embodiment, Kubala discloses that the lens surfaces that are in contact with air are preferably anti-reflection (AR) coated (col. 6, lines 48-50).
Both Zhang and Kubala disclose optical systems that include lenses that are in contact with air.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Zhang/Khan so that the first lens 22 has an AR film on each side and the second lens 21 has the reflective polarizer/quarter-wave plate combination on one side and an AR film on the other side, as taught by Kubala, since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of elements, without modification of the operation of the device only involves routine skill in the art. In re Japikse 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), for achieving better performance of the virtual reality display system by avoiding optical noise due to reflections and ray folding in the second lens.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, Khan in view of Kubala.
Regarding claim 6, Zhang/Khan discloses the display apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first curved surface is a free-form surface, and the second curved surface is a free-form surface ([0069] in Zhang).
Zhang/Khan does not disclose wherein the optical element further comprises a third anti-reflection film disposed on the first curved surface, and a fourth anti-reflection film disposed on the second curved surface.
Kubala discloses a wide field of view vision system (Fig. 1, Abstract). In one embodiment, Kubala discloses that the lens surfaces that are in contact with air are preferably anti-reflection (AR) coated (col. 6, lines 48-50).
Both Zhang and Kubala disclose optical systems that include lenses that are in contact with air.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Zhang/Khan so that the first lens 22 has an AR film on each side, as taught by Kubala, for achieving better performance of the virtual reality display system by avoiding optical noise due to reflections.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Regarding independent claim 1 (similarly for independent claim 17) Applicant stated
“Neither embodiment places these elements on the side of the first lens away from the display screen, as now required by amended claim 1. Amended claim 1 instead requires the first quarter-wave plate to be disposed on the first curved surface of the first lens, and further requires the first reflective polarizer to be positioned on the side of the first quarter-wave plate away from that curved surface. Nothing in Zhang suggests relocating the optical elements in that manner”, see p. 12 of the Remarks.
Applicant's above argument has been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As discussed above, Zhang discloses an embodiment where the reflective polarizer 24 and the quarter wave plate 23 are positioned in that order in the light emitting side of the second lens 22 (Fig. 10, [0073]).
Moreover, Applicant stated “Khan does not disclose attaching a quarter-wave plate or reflective polarizer to the cylindrical surface itself, much less for the purpose addressed in the present application”, see p. 13 of the Remarks.
It is noted that in response to Applicant's above argument against the references individually, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The rejection of claims 1, 17 and their dependents is maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 LEONIDAS BOUTSIKARIS whose telephone number is (703)756-4529. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fr. 9.00-5.00.
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, Stephone Allen, can be reached on 571-272-2434. 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.
/L.B./
Patent Examiner, AU 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights